TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4624 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held via Videoconference
on Tuesday 4 August 2020
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
City Administration and Governance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PRESENT: 1
OPENING OF MEETING: 1
MINUTES: 2
QUESTION TIME: 2
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS: 18
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report) 18
A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2020 41
B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – CONSTRUCTION OF INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE 46
C LEASE OF COUNCIL LAND TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS 53
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL: 54
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report) 54
A SALE AND LEASE BACK FACILITY FOR COUNCIL’S TRANSPORT ASSETS 66
B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES 68
C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – BITUMEN SEALING AND PAVEMENT REJUVENATION SERVICES 73
D STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – STATIC SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 78
E NAMING CITYCAT 23 83
F STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – BRISBANE COVID-19 INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM 84
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL: 89
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 89
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REJECT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 89 PRIESTDALE ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A005418564) 91
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 94
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON SIMPSONS AND CHISWICK ROADS, BARDON, FROM 60 KM/H TO 50 KM/H 96
B PETITION – REQUESTING A ZEBRA CROSSING ON WOOGAROO STREET, ELLEN GROVE, CROSSING FROM MILAN STREET, AND A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO GRAND AVENUE, FOREST LAKE 99
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RECONSIDER THE DESIGN OPTIONS PROPOSED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (LATM) TREATMENTS IN STURT STREET, KEDRON, AND INTERSECTING STREETS 102
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT SAFE AND EFFECTIVE PARKING MEASURES, INCLUDING MEASURES TO RESERVE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS; CREATE A SAFE EXIT ONTO MILES PLATTING ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS; AND INSTALL FOOTPATHS FOR RESIDENTS LIVING BETWEEN LONDON STREET AND MILES PLATTING ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS 106
E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS ABOUT PLANNING SAFER ROADS IN SHERWOOD AND ROCKLEA 110
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 113
A PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A SECTION OF PARKLAND WITHIN BRISBANE CORSO PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘JOHN WALKER PLACE’, IN HONOUR OF THE LATE JOHN WALKER’S 45 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 119
B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CARRARA STREET PARK AT 68 CARRARA AND 8 NURRAN STREETS, MT GRAVATT EAST, AS ‘CARTER’S REST’ 120
C PETITIONS – REQUEST FOR MORE BIKE TRAILS IN THE EAST BRISBANE AND COORPAROO AREAS, AND FOR A DIRT JUMP TRACK TO BE BUILT NEAR COORPAROO SKATE PARK 121
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 123
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE DESTRUCTION ORDER PLACED ON KATIE THE GERMAN SHEPHERD 124
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – CONCERNS REGARDING USE OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AS SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION: 126
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 136
GENERAL BUSINESS: 137
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 142
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 144
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER) – LNP
The Chair of Council, Councillor Andrew WINES (Enoggera Ward) – LNP
|LNP Councillors (and Wards) |ALP Councillors (and Wards) |
|Krista ADAMS (Holland Park) (Deputy Mayor) |Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (The Leader of the Opposition) |
|Greg ADERMANN (Pullenvale) |Kara COOK (Morningside) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) |
|Adam ALLAN (Northgate) |Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) |
|Lisa ATWOOD (Doboy) |Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) |
|Fiona CUNNINGHAM (Coorparoo) |Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) |
|Tracy DAVIS (McDowall) | |
|Fiona HAMMOND (Marchant) | |
|Vicki HOWARD (Central) | |
|Steven HUANG (MacGregor) | |
|Sarah HUTTON (Jamboree) | |
|Sandy LANDERS (Bracken Ridge) | |
|James MACKAY (Walter Taylor) | |
|Kim MARX (Runcorn) | |
|Peter MATIC (Paddington) | |
|David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) | |
|Ryan MURPHY (Chandler) | |
|Angela OWEN (Calamvale) | |
|Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) (Deputy Chair of Council) | |
| |Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) |
| |Independent Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) |
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chair, Councillor Andrew WINES, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
Chair: I declare the meeting open and I remind all Councillors of their obligations to declare material personal and conflicts of interest where relevant, and the requirement of such to remove yourself from the Council Chamber for debate and voting where applicable. Typically, Councillors, this would be read at the start of each meeting, but I’d like you to consider this to be the guidance and advice for this session, and I’ll read it again at the next session, but not again the next few meetings.
Thank you for your attendance today. We have done a great deal of work to prepare for everyone’s return to the Chamber, and a lot of work had been done by the officers for that, and I want to thank them for the work they did in preparation for that. I and many are disappointed that we’re not all back together in person, but I trust that this will only be a temporary arrangement, and that we’ll all be together again very soon.
Councillors, are there any apologies? No?
Confirmation of minutes, please.
MINUTES:
1/2020-21
The Minutes of the 4621 (ordinary) meeting held on 16 June 2020, the 4622 (budget) meeting held on 17 June 2020, and the 4623 (special) meeting held on 25 June 2020, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor HUTTON.
QUESTION TIME:
Chair: Councillors, can I draw your attention to Question Time, please.
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order—I’ve heard a point of order.
Councillor CASSIDY.
2/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Kara COOK, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That the LORD MAYOR immediately release the report and advice he relied on to pull Council’s nine monohull ferries from the water on Friday 24 July 2020 and that he also release the subsequent ferry audit reports conducted by an independent body on behalf of Council.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, three minutes to urgency, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. It’s very urgent today because it’s been almost two weeks now since the LORD MAYOR relied on some secret advice to pull every single one of Council’s monohull ferries from the water and to date, almost two weeks later, he has not provided any information to the people of Brisbane or to Councillors as to why they have come off the water.
He’s alluded to some mysterious safety issues. We know that there was advice he relied on. We know that subsequently Council has undertaken safety audits on those vessels, and we know that potentially third parties have undertaken safety audits on those vessels. So, we think in the interests of transparency and accountability that it is up to this Council to hold this LORD MAYOR to account.
We know that there is now commuter chaos for those people who are relying on those ferries. The LORD MAYOR gave them all of a couple of hours’ notice on last Friday gone. He’s basically said to them: sort yourselves out, maybe catch a bus, maybe catch a CityCat at another ferry terminal—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I appreciate what you’re saying. However, it’s more material than substance, and can I bring you back to urgency, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Well, thanks very much, Chair. It’s urgent because to date, almost two weeks later, this LORD MAYOR has still refused, and his Chair on ABC Radio this morning has refused to give the details that the people of Brisbane need to have the confidence in this Administration, the confidence in this Council, that they can even run a ferry service. People are starting to ask serious questions, Chair, whether there are ulterior motives when it comes to the reasons that these ferries have been pulled from the water.
There are conflicting accounts now, Chair, whether there are safety issues or not, and we think in the interests of transparency and accountability, the LORD MAYOR should be upfront with the people of Brisbane. We are elected here as representatives of the people of Brisbane to make decisions on their behalf, and when the LORD MAYOR makes these decisions on his own behind closed doors, relying on secret advice—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY—
Councillor CASSIDY: —we owe it to the people of Brisbane to put that on the table.
Chair: —come back to urgency for me, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Well, thanks, Chair. That’s it, I’m done. We want to see this advice. Thank you.
Chair: All right. Councillors, on the matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Kara COOK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: We will now return to Question Time. Question Time had not commenced yet, so it will commence now.
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chair of any Committee?
Councillor MACKAY.
Question 1
Councillor MACKAY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Over the recess, the Schrinner Administration made the difficult call to take Brisbane’s small timber ferries out of service for maintenance. Can you please give the Chamber an update on the ferry services?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor MACKAY, absolutely delighted to provide an update. We live in uncertain times—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections, please.
LORD MAYOR: Although that there are many things about life in Brisbane at the moment that are unpredictable, but Councillor MACKAY, through you, Mr Chair, one thing that is predictable is you can always predict that Labor will try and play politics with every issue that comes up. Not in the interests of the people of Brisbane, not in the interests of ratepayers, not in the interests of Council, but always in the interests of the Australian Labor Party, and that’s the only way they view every issue. We’ve seen it again today.
They know full well that there are no finalised assessments on the ferry. I heard Councillor MURPHY on ABC Radio this morning, and he made it very clear why there is nothing to release at the moment, because those assessments are not finalised. They heard the interview, they know the advice, they are simply trying to play politics with this issue.
I can tell you, Mr Chair, that being in Administration is never easy. It requires tough decisions to be made. But we will never shy away from those tough decisions. When those decisions are required, we will make them, and we will make them in the best interests of the residents of Brisbane. I can tell you: it is not in the best interests of Brisbane residents to have potentially unsafe vessels floating around on the Brisbane River putting the people of Brisbane potentially at risk. That is not in the interests of anyone, so I made the decision, with the support, the full support of my Cabinet colleagues, to postpone all of the cross-river services and the CityHopper service until we can get to the bottom of these issues.
Now, it’s been quite clear that there’s various views on the extent of any issues on these monohull ferries, and we will get to the bottom of it. I can assure all Councillors, I can assure the residents of Brisbane, that the information will be released as soon as we get those finalised assessments. We want to make sure we keep the residents of Brisbane updated, but what we know is those assessments are not finalised.
We have sought independent advice, and our consultants, who know, who understand vessels, who understand the maritime industry, are working through their assessment to finalise it, and we will also be dealing with the Federal agency, the Maritime Authority, that looks after these matters, as well. So, what I can assure the people of Brisbane is that any decision we will make, any decision we have made on this matter to date, has been about ensuring the safety of Brisbane residents and not to put them in a potentially unsafe situation.
To that end, we do understand that there has been inconvenience and disruption to a number of people, and for that we are genuinely sorry. But we can’t compromise public safety. So, when these boats, when the assessment is finalised, if they are determined to be safe, they will all go back on the Brisbane River. We love our CityCat and CityFerry services. We love the CityHopper. We introduced the CityHopper service, and providing high-quality river transport is something we are absolutely committed to.
But what I can say is that, while we go through this assessment, today I can confirm that we are working very hard with Transdev to help minimise that inconvenience to the residents of Brisbane, and in particular to the residents of Kangaroo Point. Kangaroo Point has never had a CityCat service, unlike many other parts of the Brisbane River, and catching the cross-river ferries or the CityHopper was often the only way that Kangaroo Point residents could connect into the wider network.
So, today I have asked for the CityCat, for the very first time in Brisbane history, to stop at Holman Street, Kangaroo Point. The terminal at Holman Street is equipped to take CityCats. It is a new modern terminal, and hopefully by the end of this week, that’s what we’re aiming for, we’ll have those CityCat services stopping at Holman Street to provide a service for Kangaroo Point residents.
Obviously, there are other parts of the river such as Bulimba and Teneriffe that already have access to CityCat services, and while there is an inconvenience, they do have an alternative. Kangaroo Point was different in this respect, because literally there’s a lot of people that live there and there was no alternative service available. So, by the end of this week, we’re keen to get that CityCat service operating from Holman Street. I apologise to people who have been inconvenienced, but I do not apologise for putting safety first. Safety must be first.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 2
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Bushland at 415 to 427 Beckett Road, Bridgeman Downs, has been clearly and repeatedly identified as koala habitat by the Queensland Government and by Council. That bushland remains under threat from development as we speak. Despite Council knocking back a DA (development application), it’s now before the Planning and Environment Court. The only true way to save this land and protect the family of koalas that live on it, is to buy this land.
Today, Labor is calling for this land to be bought by Council and saved. LORD MAYOR, will you support this call to protect Brisbane’s vulnerable wildlife and purchase this land in Bridgeman Downs?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and Councillor CASSIDY, thank you for the question. Well, well, well, this is an extraordinary turn of events, because I remember week after week in Council hearing from Labor Councillors that we buy far too much bushland in LNP wards—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —and we should only buy bushland in Labor wards. Yet, here we have a request from the Labor Party to buy bushland in an LNP ward. I wonder if Councillor CASSIDY has sought the approval of Councillor GRIFFITHS for this motion.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: He is very, very opposed to any bushland being acquired in LNP wards—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We know, time and time again—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, I appreciate that we’ve had a small break and that some people are going to be enthusiastic and keen today, but please allow the answers to be heard in silence.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. We know that, time and time again, Labor has criticised acquisition of bushland in LNP wards. They’ve called it a rort. Yet, today, they’re asking us to buy bushland in an LNP ward. So, quite extraordinary.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: It’s really quite extraordinary. But, as Councillor CASSIDY pointed out himself, we have refused the development application here, and we have been consistent that we do not support the destruction of vital koala habitat in this manner, and that is our clear position.
Now, when you think Labor’s backflipped completely on their position here and they’ve opposed acquisition of bushland in LNP wards, but suddenly they’re all for this one, I wonder what might be behind this. Could it be the State election? Could it be, as I said earlier, that Labor is very predictable in always putting the Labor Party first, always playing politics? Could it be that they see this as an issue in one of the most marginal State seats in the State election coming up in just a few months’ time?
Could it be that they want to use this as an opportunity to try and attack the fantastic LNP candidate, Amanda Cooper, who is going to win Aspley?
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I am confident we will win Aspley, and the Labor Party are running scared. They are squirming, looking for any issue to try and scare the residents, to try and flare up issues, to try and light bushfires. They are doing everything they can to help their State Labor colleagues in the lead-up to the State election. But their efforts will fail. Amanda Cooper, I believe, will be elected as the new member for Aspley, and she will—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
LORD MAYOR: —be a champion State member—
Chair: Order. I have a point of order to Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: This is a wonderful trip through the rabbit hole with the LORD MAYOR here, Chair, but the question was very clear: will the LORD MAYOR purchase this land using the bushland preservation funding?
Chair: LORD MAYOR, can I draw you back to the question, please?
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. I acknowledge the significant change in Labor’s approach here, where they’ve criticised us for buying bushland, they’ve attacked us for buying bushland in LNP areas. We have a proud record of buying bushland and saving it, and it’s not just about buying it, it’s about saving it.
As Councillor CASSIDY is well aware, there are a number of ways that bushland can be saved. There are a number of ways that are very effective in protecting bushland. Now, some of that bushland will come into public ownership, by all means. We have a very long record of acquiring sites and bringing them into public ownership, but we also have a very proud record of making sure that critical bushland in private ownership, that we use our legislative requirements, we use our mapping, to make sure as much privately owned bushland as possible is protected as well. That’s why we voted—well, not voted, but that’s why Council decided to reject this application, to refuse this application, because we do not support the development of this site in the way that is proposed.
We do support the protection of this bushland, and I believe we made the right decision. If Councillor CASSIDY is very, very concerned about the State koala mapping, then probably the best thing he can do, pick up the phone to his colleagues in the State Government and ask them to call the application in and deal with it themselves. They have that power. I think that would be a sterling idea for Councillor CASSIDY to take up. He can intervene here. The State Government can call this in, and we can get hopefully out of that process a great outcome whereby we see the bushland protected.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: In the end, that’s got to be the main aim here—protecting the bushland. How it’s done, there’s various ways that can happen. How it’s done is less important than whether it’s done, whether it’s protected, and we want to see it protected, and we have been absolutely consistent about that—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —and our position has not changed.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Question 3
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, the Schrinner Administration has been working hard to ensure Brisbane endures through the current tough economic times. Can you please give an update on the economic recovery initiatives that are currently under way helping the building and construction industry keep Brisbane moving?
Chair: DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND, and Councillor WINES for the call, and for the question, because it was something that was presented today in Committee. I think it’s very important that everybody in the Chambers is aware those initiatives are up and running and that they can share them with anybody within their wards in the building and construction industry to make sure that we can keep this industry continuing to keep moving, so we can keep money in the pockets of our subcontractors and our tradies right across the city, so they’re putting the money into the pockets of our small businesses.
Obviously, COVID-19 has had a very big impact on all businesses across Brisbane—tourism and retail—and the building and construction industry is absolutely no different. But we do realise that this damage is something that we can help to minimise by making sure that we can keep the projects going on the ground.
In addition to this, we read in yesterday’s paper that those who are still trading fear they will go broke within the next 12 months, and if either current welfare initiatives dry up or restrictions don’t ease, it’s going to be very difficult to get them back up to full capacity any time soon.
So, that’s why the Schrinner Administration introduced a suite of initiatives designed to keep their head above water. As the Chair for City Planning and Economic Development, there’s a very key sector that we’ve been focused on, and that is the building and construction industry. It is Brisbane’s biggest employer—nearly 120,000 jobs are reliant on this sector across Brisbane. It equates to almost 16% of all jobs in the local government area, and $20 million worth of direct and indirect wages each year. So, it is absolutely crucial that this industry, as large as it is, is kept on its feet.
Therefore, we did have several new initiatives designed just to do this that I spoke about in budget information sessions and budget debate, and we looked today at how they’re going. We’ve reduced red tape; we’re helping builders through potential sticking points; we’re delivering the security industry needs right now, not just for major companies but for mum and dad developers as well. It seems to be working very, very well.
In stark contrast to what we heard in the budget information sessions and the budget debate, where those in Opposition said these policies meant that developers were getting a free ride across the city, which was actually their words, not mine. What we’re doing is trying to make sure that we can minimise the hit to their hip pockets, and we can minimise the bureaucracy so they can get on with doing what they do best, and that is keeping their industry alive to support our economy.
So, especially for some of our interesting initiatives that have been taken up very, very quickly, so we’ve got a free pre-lodgement advice that is working very well, and the House of Homes team have been doing tremendous work to date and have met every KPI they set. So, our new 20-business day turnarounds for new homes and extensions, and full and partial demolitions, is going great guns. We’ve had 67 applications lodged since they began, and 34 of those have been approved with the rest still under assessment.
They are designed to work hand in hand with the Federal Government grants scheme, so homeowners can get in and do their work on their properties, make sure they’re getting their approvals as soon as possible, and this is a good thing for our subcontractors.
In addition to the fast-track services, there are a number of fee reductions we’ve implemented as well. We know for all types of businesses, cash is king, and the more they have in their bank accounts and in their cash flows, the more they’re going to reinvest into that business and family as well. So, we’ve waived application fees for residential domestic scale development for all applications lodged between 1 July and 30 September. Following this, it will be then 50% from 1 October to 31 December. So, this will apply for new dwelling houses, extensions, home-based businesses and many others across that very much single dwelling domestic use in the suburbs.
Also, extension of time for people; from 1 July, there will be a 50% discount and automatic extension for approvals that were due to expire in June last year. We are taking them very seriously and not making sure that there’s any that are just taking advantage of that because they haven’t got around to it. But there is the reality that people who thought they may be ready to go and get it done in the next 12 months, may be reassessing what that means to them with the pandemic and their circumstances over the last couple of months.
There’s still a lot of work to do, but when we had the chance to deliver a budget with reduced fees and new policies to help struggling industries, we were absolutely thrilled to take that opportunity. We heard some of the feedback today about how excited the industry is about that, and we will continue to advocate for the building and construction industry every step of the way to make sure that Brisbane keeps moving, and we keep constructing houses and homes for our residents.
Chair: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.
Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 4
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. On 28 January 2020, you wrote to a Brisbane resident indicating that a traffic survey would be undertaken to inform a formal speed limit review on King Arthur Terrace through the Yeerongpilly Green development at Tennyson. Can you please advise when this traffic survey was undertaken, and the results of the traffic survey?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON, for the question. Obviously, that’s not information that I have at my fingertips right now, but happy to take that on notice for you and get back to you.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor TOOMEY.
Question 5
Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Chair; my question is to the Chair of City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, Councillor MARX. Over the past three years, the average Brisbane household is now saving an additional 64 kilograms of food waste from being dumped into landfill each year. Can you outline how Council has ramped up its efforts to educate our residents on the importance of recycling and saving food from waste to produce this outcome?
Chair: Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you for the question, Councillor TOOMEY. Look, food waste is hard to stomach, especially when more than a quarter of Brisbane waste is made up of leftovers or old fruit and veg. The good news is that Brisbane households are now keeping a closer eye on their food waste than ever before, stopping the equivalent of more than 260 Big Macs, 360 packets of chips, or 90 loaves of bread from heading to landfill this year.
As Councillor TOOMEY correctly point out in his question, the average household of four is now saving an incredible 64 kilograms a year more in food waste compared with just three years ago. It’s no coincidence that this has come about on the back of Council ramping up efforts to educate residents about good recycling practices.
As many in the Chamber will remember, Council was proud to join the international Love Food Hate Waste movement in 2017. This movement encourages people to change household recycling habits for the better, espousing both sustainability benefits and educating residents on how they can save money at the same time. Through the help of popular Council initiatives such as education programs and community composting hubs, we’ve seen the total amount of food waste in our city drop by nearly a fifth in just three years.
In 2016-17, food waste was, on average, 81.9 kilograms per person, and in 2019-20, it impressively reduced to an average of 66 kilograms. Mr Chair, I know it will come as no surprise to Councillors to hear that Council’s 26 community composting hubs are an absolute hit with residents. Their popularity is only increasing, with the number of registered participants growing by more than 54% from 5,354 to 8,251 people in the last year. Since the first hubs opened in 2016, they have diverted more than 450,000 kilograms of food waste from landfill.
In addition to programs specific to tackling food waste, Council also runs a 104 or More litter program, and that program encourages every resident to pick up at least two pieces of rubbish a week for a year. Last year, Council hosted 72 events, and gave residents free access to our 42 litter clean-up kits, which include litter picker-uppers and lightweight hand-held bins to make clean-up activities easy and affordable.
This Administration has also recently announced a raft of initiatives to help residents supercharge their recycling efforts, such as composting bin and worm farm rebates, a free upsize yellow top recycling bin on request—and can I add that we have now hit the 9,000 requests for that larger recycling bin, and also a new green bin that has no delivery or establishment fee.
In the past financial year alone, 76,000 tonnes of waste has been recycled through yellow top bins and 26,000 tonnes of garden waste through our green bin. We have also, for the first time, now expanded our free annual waste voucher distribution program to include mailing to our renters directly.
Finally, when it comes to recycling, I’d like to take the opportunity to remind the Chamber and residents about Council’s annual Revive second-hand fashion festival which will return to Brisbane in October this year, so keep your eyes out on the website for all that information. While, of course, the organisers of the festival continue to monitor the coronavirus and situation restrictions closely, I encourage residents to keep an eye on Council’s website for the details and the most up to date information about this fantastic and popular re-use initiative. I know, for one, I will definitely be there. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 6
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Now that you’ve got all of the blame out of your system, I have another question about bushland in Bridgeman Downs. The LNP Administration was prepared to spend $6.2 million to buy back land under threat from development at Mt Gravatt for so-called koala habitat. You are refusing to buy bushland at 415 to 427 Beckett Road, Bridgeman Downs. LORD MAYOR, why is bushland in marginal LNP wards more important than koala habitat in safe LNP wards?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you for the question, Councillor CASSIDY, through you, Mr Chair. Well, Aspley is probably one of the most marginal seats you can find anywhere in the State of Queensland, so I don’t know the definition of safe and marginal. I just think this is a classic Labor views everything through the party-political lens. As I said before, if there is another way to save bushland that has a lower expense to the ratepayers of Brisbane, then that’s something that we should look at investigating. That’s something that we should look at pursuing.
Labor seems to think throwing money at every problem is the right solution, even though it doesn’t necessarily generate the best outcomes. Now, we know and we have a proud record of acquiring land that is at risk, but we also have a proud record, as I mentioned before, of saving bushland in other ways.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Because, if we can do that, and that is our intent in this situation, if we can do that, then there are more funds available to preserve more land across the city. It’s as simple as that.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So that we can—they’re on about the LNP areas again. I mean, do they want us to protect this bushland or not? Because one minute they seem to be arguing for it and the next minute complaining that it’s in an LNP ward. The fact that they even talk about the margins just shows what their motives are here.
In the end, if there is a more cost-effective way to save a parcel of bushland—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —then we have a responsibility to the people of Brisbane to pursue that, and there are countless examples of where we have saved significant areas of bushland at little or no cost to the ratepayers of Brisbane at all. It’s been done either through the development process; it’s been done by putting vegetation protection instruments on various bits of land; it’s been done by having land handed over to Council in various ways. There’s a whole range of different ways that land can be saved, so simply throwing money at a problem, is not necessarily the most wise thing to do.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: This is why Labor, whenever they get—
Chair: No interjections, please.
LORD MAYOR: —in charge of anything, blows a massive hole in the budget. This is why Labor can’t manage money. This simply issue illustrates why—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —is always throw money at them. Ultimately—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I’ve asked for no interjections, please. I’ll now name you.
Councillor CASSIDY, please cease interjecting.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: I also wanted to call out Councillor CASSIDY on one other thing, through you, Mr Chair. He said we’re refusing to buy the land. I have never refused to buy the land. I’ve never done that. So, for him to suggest that is simply verballing. It’s consistent with his political messaging, but it is not accurate. I’m simply pointing out that there are various ways to save this land, and we’re looking at the best way to save this land.
But, if he was genuinely interested in it, then the sure-fire way to resolve this development issue that exists at the moment, where we’ve refused an application and now it’s going through the appeal process, is for the State Government to call in the application. They’ve done it in other examples. They’ve done it in other areas. We know many high-profile examples of where the State Government has called in applications that they had concerns with. So, he just has to pick up the phone to his colleagues in the State Government and try and engineer that outcome. That’s a further way that this land could be saved.
But we refused it—we refused the application because we didn’t support the development of the bushland. It’s as simple as that. So, Councillor CASSIDY, look, you can try any angle that you like on this. We have a very proud record of saving bushland, and we are passionate about saving bushland. That goes all the way back—it’s in our DNA. It goes all the way back to when Sallyanne Atkinson, as the first female Lord Mayor, and as a proud Liberal, introduced the Bushland Acquisition Program, and then we took it forward and we supercharged it. We delivered 10 years’ worth of acquisitions through that program in the last four years. We not only delivered on our promise to save 750 hectares of bushland; we exceeded that promise. So our record is very clear when it comes to saving bushland, but just buying it is only one of those mechanisms we use to save it, and I say again, there are other ways that this bushland can be saved. Some of them, we will continue to pursue, but others are at the State’s—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
LORD MAYOR: —and they can do that.
Chair: Are there any further questions?
Councillor HUANG.
Question 7
Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. The first stage of the Oxley Creek revitalisation has completed, with the opening of the Warril Parkland. Can you please update us on this exciting milestone, and also progress of other park projects over the recess?
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor HUANG, for the question. The new $5 million Warril Parkland in Larapinta is officially open and ready to explore and enjoy. This is a huge milestone in the 20-year $100 million Oxley Creek Transformation Vision. Warril Parkland is the southern gateway to the Oxley Creek corridor, eventually linking with other recreation and activity hubs to the north, including Archerfield Wetlands, Oxley Creek Common and Graceville Riverside Parklands.
The parkland, located on Paradise Road, Larapinta, is just a 30-minute trip from the city and will be popular with residents in surrounding suburbs, but also a destination parkland for the entire city. The name Warril Parkland was chosen in consultation with the Jagera and Turrbal people from the indigenous term for creek or water course. The parkland is a six-hectare natural sanctuary that offers something for all ages. Kids can explore and go on an adventure across the large nature-based adventure playground, while the entire family can enjoy the tranquil setting, lakeside boardwalk, picnic and barbeque facilities.
The playground has plenty to spark the imagination of curious minds, with climbing and balancing logs, flying foxes, a waterplay area with a water pump and shower, and a large climbable tower surrounded by swings and steppingstones. The parkland also features a junior ranger program. The program has been developed to give children the opportunity to become participants in protecting and enhancing Oxley Creek and its surrounding greenspaces by building their knowledge about its people, plants and animals.
The junior ranger program hosts a range of activities for children of all ages, including the Warril Parkland Discovery Trail which includes quizzes and challenges to complete in the parkland, as well as activities that can be completed either at home or at school. Warril Parkland is just one of the precincts and greenspaces being created as part of the Oxley Creek Transformation, giving Brisbane residents more ways to connect among the outdoors.
I pay tribute to the Oxley Creek Transformation Board, staff and everyone who has been involved in this project. It’s an exciting milestone for the team, as work continues on delivering the award-winning master plan across the entire catchment.
Another transformational project reached a milestone recently with consultation for the Victoria Park Draft Vision coming to a close. Over 2,000 people provided feedback on the draft vision, with overwhelming backing for the concept from residents across Brisbane and the suburbs surrounding the park. The support for the Victoria Park Draft Vision has been very positive. Consultation was open from January to July, with the original consultation end date of April 2020 needing to be extended due to COVID-19, to ensure every resident has an opportunity to have their say.
This huge response demonstrates how passionate Brisbane residents are about their greenspace, supporting our commitment to a clean and green city for everyone to enjoy. The coronavirus restrictions which closed our playgrounds and parks for recreational visits, picnics and sport, reminded us exactly how important they are to our everyday lives, fitness and mental health. So, with parks back open, it’s been a really exciting period, with a number of innovative new concepts and projects coming to fruition.
I’d also like to make special mention of the opening of Brisbane’s first dedicated scooter track and magical kingdom playground at Bradbury Park in Kedron, and I acknowledge Councillor HAMMOND for her work and support for this project. At Guyatt Park in St Lucia, in Walter Taylor Ward, a new outdoor fitness challenge course inspired by Ninja Warrior, opened last month, and a refurbished junior playground is opening this month. Councillor MACKAY tells me the Ninja course has been hugely popular so far. These projects, and indeed all of our parks, are extremely popular at the moment, a testament to what’s on offer, and supports our recent and future investments to make them even better.
We know Brisbane residents love their team sports, and that’s why we’ve also invested in sports parks, with the upgrade to Wakerley District Sports Park recently opened, featuring state of the art netball facilities and a new home for the Wakerley Meals on Wheels community facility. These are just some of the ways that Team Schrinner is making the Brisbane of tomorrow even better than the Brisbane of today. Our city has more than 6,000 hectares of urban parkland for residents and visitors to enjoy and explore. We’re always looking for ways to find the right balance between recreation, restoration and conservation of these natural areas.
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 8
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Developers are fighting hard in court to destroy the piece of koala habitat at Beckett Road, Bridgeman Downs, we’ve been discussing today. Both in the media and in the Chamber today now, you’ve continued to try to shift the blame and responsibility to everyone else.
The only way to reduce the risk of a developer winning this court battle, or a negotiated outcome between Council and the developer, is by putting your foot down and buying the land. When will you, LORD MAYOR, stop blaming everyone else and step up to the plate and buy this bushland to protect the koalas you claim to care so much about?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor CASSIDY, again, yet, for the third time in a row, for this question. It’s interesting; we had an urgency motion earlier which was apparently very important to the Labor Party, yet they’ve spent all of Question Time talking about another issue entirely which relates, as we’ve pointed out, to a highly marginal seat in the lead-up to the State election. It shows what their priorities are.
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: The LORD MAYOR needs to answer the question, not debate the question. The Meetings Local Law is very clear about this, Chair.
Chair: I keep an eye on a lot of these things, and the LORD MAYOR has moved properly to addressing the question, and I believe that he was addressing it at the moment you called the point of order.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the language is really interesting here, because Councillor CASSIDY is saying, oh, we’re pointing the finger of blame. It’s actually, that’s what he’s doing. It’s quite fascinating here, because we’re not blaming anyone; we’re simply saying that we look at various different options to save bushland. We’re not shying away from that fact. But the only one who’s blaming anyone here is Councillor CASSIDY. I’ve just been given information which indicates why, or I believe it indicates why.
The last time I was briefed on this matter, I was advised that the State Government had the ability to call in the application. As we know, they’ve done it in a number of cases where there’s been controversial development applications come up, and where they’re very passionate about a particular area of block of land or intervening in a particular development. So, they have quite clear form when it comes to calling in development applications.
But that was last week. Now, I have just been told that the deadline for calling in the application has passed. It passed on 31 July. Now I know why Councillor CASSIDY is scrambling to point the finger of blame, because the State had the opportunity to do something about this, and they squibbed it. They didn’t do it. They failed, and now Councillor CASSIDY is busy pointing the finger of blame at the LNP and at this Administration. He’s the only one that’s blaming anyone here, but I simply point out they could have called in the application, but they didn’t. So, anything that Labor says on this has zero credibility.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Zero credibility. So, Councillor CASSIDY—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections, please.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: —your colleagues, could have dealt with this issue, and you were talking about the developers fighting this appeal. You seem to be very well aware of what’s happening here, but you left out the point where the State Government failed to call it in when they had the power and the ability to do something.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, as well, LORD MAYOR, can I insist that all Councillors be referred to in the third person and use full titles, please, proper titles.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, okay. Councillor CASSIDY, you are very aware that the State had that power and they didn’t—
Chair: No, I misspoke. Please address all comments through the Chair and address other Councillors in the third person.
LORD MAYOR: That’s all right, Mr Chair. Look, the point that Councillor CASSIDY seems to be making is simply to point the finger of blame at us, and it’s not particularly helpful when his colleagues in the Labor Party had a really powerful tool to intervene in this issue and they didn’t use it. So, I think that says it all. It says it all. When you’re more interested in playing politics with an issue and pointing the finger at others than in actually doing something.
Who’s taken action here? Let’s have a look. We’ve taken action. We refused the application, and we’re standing by that refusal. What action has the Labor Party taken? None. Not one. They’ve played politics with it. They’ve pointed the finger at others, but when they had the opportunity to do something, they squibbed it. So, Councillor CASSIDY, I’m sorry, but I’m not blaming anyone, and I suggest that you stop pointing the finger of blame—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —at us with Labor’s appalling record on this matter.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
3/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Kara COOK, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That Brisbane City Council urgently purchase bushland at 415 to 427 Beckett Road, Bridgeman Downs, to protect important koala habitat.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, three minutes, please focus your topics on urgency.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. This is extremely urgent that we deal with this today, because this has been an issue that’s been going on in the community over the last couple of weeks and months, and people out in that part of the northside have been crying out for Council to take action. Now, fair enough, the LORD MAYOR is correct, and we give credit to Council that the application was refused. That’s a fair point. We support the refusal of that application.
But what people know happens under this Administration is that all too often, behind closed doors, these things then get appealed to the Planning and Environment Court, which is happening right now, Chair, as we speak—
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: The court procedure is a court procedure. Councillor CASSIDY is imputing motive to suggest anything else from the Planning and Environment Court.
Councillor CASSIDY: I haven’t suggested anything yet.
Chair: No, no, hang on, hang on.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, you have.
Chair: Look, I didn’t hear imputing motive in it. However, I will direct that all Councillors must not impute motive or reflect adversely on other Councillors or the courts.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks very much, Chair. Certainly not imputing motive on the courts in any way, shape or form. But what we know happens is that, in these court cases, there are very often negotiated outcomes. So, conservationists and people from koala rescue organisations have made very clear that a negotiated outcome is almost as bad as this development going ahead as it is.
One tree being knocked down on this site is one tree too many. So, the LORD MAYOR has said there are different ways that this land can be protected. That is not true. The only way that this particular land at 415 to 427 Beckett Road, Bridgeman Downs, can be protected is to be purchased and kept intact. It is a vital link in the mountains to mangroves corridor, Chair.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, once again, a lot of your statements are regarding materiality and the substance of the point rather than urgency. Can I please draw your comments to the urgency?
Councillor CASSIDY: It is urgent today because this is before the courts. We saw just last month at 2-8 Richmond Road, Morningside, Council refused a development application. It went to the court, and there was a negotiated outcome. People are seeing this happen over and over again, Chair. They want the certainty, they want to know that this piece of land is going to be protected, and people know that it’s not going to be protected through a negotiated outcome in the Planning and Environment Court. It’s not protected now through a DA refusal.
The only way this can be protected—and it can’t be protected to be called in and again, development controls put on it. I think everyone is in furious agreement in the community that the only way that this land can be protected is for it to be purchased. Some $30 million of ratepayers’ money is put into the Bushland Preservation Fund each and every year. This fund should be used to purchase this land.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, please return to urgency. Once again, your comments are about substance rather than urgency. To urgency, please.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: I’ve finished, Chair.
Chair: Okay. All right, I will now put the urgency motion.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Kara COOK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
Chair: We will now restart Question Time. Are there any further questions?
Councillor HUTTON.
Question 9
Councillor HUTTON: Thank you, Mr Chair; my question is to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor McLACHLAN. The Black Spot program is an ongoing commitment to road safety funded by the Federal Government as part of their Local Road Safety package. Can you please provide an update on the Black Spot program for this new financial year, and explain how our city benefits from this and other funding?
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to Councillor HUTTON for the question. I’d like to start actually by commending the State Government for its new Street Smarts campaign message. The message is that road safety is a responsibility that we all share, and that unless individual drivers practise responsible driving behaviours, accidents will continue to happen. Dangerous driver habits like tailgating, not giving way, running red lights and breaking other road rules all contribute to serious crashes.
If motorists were more patient on our roads and understood and obeyed the road rules, the daily tragedies on our road network, with their incalculable costs, would be reduced. Also reduced would be the need for all levels of government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to modify roads. But, Mr Chair, we do continue to have accident black spots, and we do undertake works in conjunction with the State and Federal Governments to improve the safety of our road network, and to reduce traffic congestion.
The Federal Government has a range of grant programs which allow Council to undertake critical safety and congestion-busting projects across the city each year. An ongoing program that funds crucial safety outcomes is Roads to Recovery. We have a few Roads to Recovery projects currently under way, one of which is at the intersection of Montague Road and Victoria Street in South Brisbane.
The Urban Congestion Fund, announced by the Federal Government last year, will assist Council in targeting a number of congestion hotspots across Brisbane. The first of these projects was completed just last week. The new traffic signals were switched on at the Commercial Road and Doggett Street intersection in Newstead by Councillor HOWARD.
The Black Spot program funds several critical safety upgrades. This is a really important grant program that helps Council target the most dangerous intersections across the city. In the current financial year, four projects will be funded through the Black Spots program. Black Spot projects are at locations with a high number of serious crashes across the road network.
In the current budget, the first of these is at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Industrial Avenue in Wacol. Since 2013, Mr Chair, this intersection has seen 15 accidents, of which seven resulted in hospitalisations. The majority of accidents occurred as a result of vehicles on Campbell Avenue failing to give way to traffic on Industrial Avenue. With Black Spot funding, Council will be installing a roundabout which will improve safety by providing a low speed environment through the intersection with improved visibility and awareness of vehicle priority.
This year’s program will also upgrade the intersection of London Road and Stanbrough Road in Belmont. This is currently a four-way priority-controlled intersection featuring two stop signs. It’s seen six accidents, all involving hospitalisations, since July 2013. Crashes at the intersection are primarily caused by road users on London Road failing to give way to through traffic on Stanbrough Road. Council will replace the stop sign controlled intersection with a roundabout.
The intersection of Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Coldridge Street in St Lucia is in close proximity to the UQ campus and right next to the UQ sports fields. This intersection sees high pedestrian movement with many students walking along Sir Fred Schonell Drive. Since July 2013 there have been 15 accidents at this location resulting in eight hospitalisations. At the moment, it’s a signalised T-intersection. The existing signals on Sir Fred Schonell Drive will be upgraded from a filtered right turn to a controlled right turn onto Coldridge Street.
Mr Chair, the fourth Black Spot project in this year’s budget is at the intersection of Ipswich Road, Ponsonby Street and Junction Terrace in Annerley. The current intersection is a non-signalised crossroad controlled by give way and stop signs. Motorists turning into or out of Ipswich Road are colliding with the through traffic on Ipswich Road, and as a result there have been 13 reported crashes at this intersection between July 2013 and May 2020, with 10 hospitalisations.
Junction Park State School is located very close to this intersection. Importantly, this intersection will deliver a signalised pedestrian crossing to allow students to cross Ipswich Road safely. Mr Chair, a high number of accidents along Ipswich Road over the past few years have occurred at this intersection, and the $2 million project to signalise the intersection will both reduce the number of crashes and help slow traffic, cars, trucks along Ipswich Road. I look forward to these projects getting under way this financial year, projects which will deliver on our commitment to creating a safer transport network for all road users. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN, your time has expired.
That concludes Question Time.
Councillors, can I draw your attention to the Establishment and Coordination Committee Reports—the recommendations—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
4/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
Calling on Council to buy back land adjacent to the Francis Outlook in Corinda.
Chair: I believe it’s being forwarded to the support team, and they’ll be distributing it to all Councillors in a moment.
Councillor JOHNSTON, you have three minutes to urgency, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you so much, Mr Chairman. Over the past seven months, the community in Sherwood and Corinda has been very concerned about development application at number 9 Francis Street, Corinda. This is urgent because there is a DA currently on the site to develop a house. This block would immediately adjoin the Francis Lookout which is a heritage listed park. It was established in the 1860s and contains the burial plots of the Francis family and their descendants. They were the original European settlers in the district. They owned a huge swathe of land through Corinda and Sherwood.
This matter is quite urgent because the proposal to build the house—the house is actually located in CR1; there are problems with the design of the house in terms of its modern structure, and the bigger problem, however, is the impact on the heritage aspects of the park.
It’s urgent that Council buys back the land because this is a code assessable development, and I am extremely concerned that Council will approve this development. It has the potential to significantly impact on the environmental values of the park. The outlook—it is an outlook park. It has very significant views out to the D’Aguilar Range, and also the cultural and social history of the park as a burial plot for early European settlers in our district.
There is precedent to buy back this land. The LORD MAYOR bought back three residential blocks in Mt Gravatt; spent $6 million in Councillor Krista ADAMS’ ward. So, where there is an important purpose here, which is to protect the significant environmental historic cultural and social values of this park, my community and I believe that these are blocks that should be bought back to preserve this parkland for future generations.
So, I’m calling on Council to support the buyback of the blocks adjacent to the outlook to provide a buffer area to the adjoining character residential zone. I certainly call on Council to refuse the DA. There have been hundreds of objections, including mine, over the past six months.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, you’ve got 30 seconds, but if you could just go back to why the matter is urgent, why it must be dealt with now, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. It’s urgent because the DA is currently pending. I think approval would be imminent at this point based on all of the reviews that I’ve seen on PD Online. This is a very important community issue in my ward. There is precedent to buy back land in residential areas that this Council set when it spent $6 million buying back land in Councillor ADAMS’ ward—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Six point two; thank you, Councillor GRIFFITHS. It is critically important that Council acts to buy back this land as a matter of urgency prior to the DA being approved.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
All right, on the matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Kara COOK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, Mr Chair. Look, before I move on to the submissions that we have in front of us today, there’s a couple of issues I wanted to touch on. Once again, the extraordinary approach that Labor took when it comes to this land in Beckett Road. We cannot forget that these are the people—and this is the party that is so concerned about bushland that, on a number of occasions the State Labor Government has tried to sell off bushland and then hold Council to ransom saying, well, the only way that this bushland can be saved is if the Council buys it off us. That’s the way of saving it from development. We’ve seen that story played out again and again. Quite extraordinary.
So, taxpayers own a parcel of bushland; the State Government tries to sell it off, and then blames the Council for not buying it at ratepayers’ expense, when the people of Queensland already own the land. So, we’ve seen that again and again. Then we’ve also seen, while Councillor CASSIDY is asking questions, hectares of bushland bulldozed through the Boondall Wetlands for the Gateway Motorway Upgrade, and I didn’t see any concern about that. In fact, the State Government exempted themselves from any requirement to do offset planting for that upgrade.
Council does offset planting for every upgrade that we do, and if there’s vegetation impacted on, we plant many more trees and plants than were impacted, and we take that responsibility very seriously. What does the State Labor Government do? They exempt themselves from any offset requirements. So, they bulldozed the Boondall Wetlands and now, if we’re talking about Aspley, what about Carseldine and what they’re trying to do up there? It’s a State-owned site which has significant vegetation on it, and they want to develop every blade of grass on that site.
So, Councillor CASSIDY, seriously—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no.
LORD MAYOR: They come in here trying to point the finger at others. You know what they say: when you’re point one finger at someone else, there’s all these other fingers pointing back at you, and that is exactly what is happening here. Councillor CASSIDY, it is quite appalling, the approach you’re taking.
Now, I wanted to also talk about the monohull ferries. I said that Labor’s approach was very predictable, because it’s all about politicising every issue. But something very unpredictable has happened today. I’ve just seen an article published online where a union official from the MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) has basically said: safety concerns—what safety concerns? There’s no issue. So, we have the MUA union officials saying, oh, there’s nothing wrong with the boats, as far as we can tell. Another quite extraordinary development.
Now, unions’ bread and butter is supposedly safety. We’ve heard story after story about sites being shut down for minor issues—someone might have left a toolbox in the wrong spot—oh, safety issue, shut down the site. We need to make it safe. Yet, it’s apparently okay for potentially unsafe vessels to be carrying passengers on the Brisbane River. I never thought I would see a union take this kind of approach. It is really quite extraordinary. But, unfortunately, I think it’s just the case that this is an LNP Administration, so they have to criticise everything we do. That is, well, not as unpredictable as their approach on safety is.
But let’s have a look at Labor’s approach, because that’s really the more relevant issue here. We acted very quickly and decisively on this issue. When there’s a shadow of a doubt over safety, you can’t mess around. We haven’t messed around. We took decisive action, and we need to get to the bottom of these potential safety issues to make sure that our much-loved monohull ferries will not go into service unless they are absolutely safe to do so. That is a responsibility that I and this Council has to the people of Brisbane.
We should never knowingly put people in an unsafe situation, and potentially, if there’s independent expert advice suggesting that urgent action is needing to be taken, and we received that advice about 10 days ago, and now we’re getting to the bottom in more detail of what work needs to be done to the vessels, just to give the people of Brisbane that surety.
But then you have a look at the different and changing position that Labor Councillors have taken on this matter. So, today we heard that apparently this is a cost-saving measure. There’s a conspiracy now being peddled by, I think it was Councillor COOK, that somehow this is all just about saving money. Well, Councillor COOK, the reality of the matter is that—
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, the LORD MAYOR continues to ignore your ruling regards to talking directly to another Councillor and not through you.
Chair: I understand, Councillor STRUNK. LORD MAYOR and all Councillors, please direct all comments to me, and if you wish to direct it to another Councillor, please direct your comments to the Chair.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the reminder, and apologies for that oversight. Mr Chair, it seems that Councillor COOK has cooked up this conspiracy theory that it’s about cost saving. Well, I can tell you, we are paying the Transdev ferry masters and the staff even though they are not actually providing services. So, it’s actually costing money, even though the services have stopped. So, this is certainly not a cost-saving measure. This is a life-saving measure. That’s our priority. This is about making sure that people are safe on our river. The people of Brisbane would expect nothing less from us.
But then, there’s been this changing position about whether there’s an issue or not. One minute Councillor COOK is out there saying that, oh, Council has known about safety issues for months. Yet now, they’re saying there’s no issue. So, what is it? The position of the Labor Party has moved more times than the cross river ferry, one side, back to the other, back to the other.
Councillor COOK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: I’m just a bit concerned that the LORD MAYOR repeatedly is misleading the Chamber. He seems to be attributing the comments from the union or ABC Brisbane to me personally. I’m not sure if he’s heard the interview, but those issues were not raised by me but by the ABC and by the MUA.
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Look, I’m not surprised to hear Councillor COOK backing away from those comments, Mr Chair.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections, Councillor COOK.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: I will always tell the truth to the people of Brisbane, and I will always—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, Councillor COOK, I direct you to cease interjecting.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: I am simply pointing out, Mr Chair, Labor’s constantly shifting position on this matter, whereas our position has been—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, Councillor COOK appears to be misleading the Chamber, because on 24 July, Councillor COOK told Channel 7 that maintenance issues with the vessels had been known about for months.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor COOK, you don’t get to jump up and speak whenever you wish. That’s not how it works. If you’d like to make a statement, you make one later, but not at your leisure when someone else is speaking. That’s not how the rules work.
LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no. Look, no, Councillor COOK, that’s not how it works.
LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, it appears Councillor COOK doesn’t want the truth to come out, because she has been caught over-cooking it again on this one. It is a classic Councillor COOK reaction where everything is a controversy, everything is a conspiracy. The LORD MAYOR needs to fix this issue; the LORD MAYOR is trying to—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, Councillor COOK; I consider that you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct, and in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001, I hereby request that you cease interjecting, cease attempting to debate through points of order, and cease interrupting through the remainder of this meeting. I direct you to refrain from exhibiting these conducts, to you, Councillor COOK.
The call to you, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. It is right that you pulled up Councillor COOK on abusing the rules of this meeting in that way. The reality is, you can’t take both positions, because Labor on the one hand, together with the union, is suggesting that somehow, we’ve over-reacted in this matter, yet also they’ve been suggesting that we’ve known about maintenance issues for months. Those two positions are completely—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —are completely inconsistent with each other. Now, I can tell you that we acted very quickly to any concerns that have been raised about the vessels, but I must also point out, as Councillor MURPHY highlighted on radio today, that the operator is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the vessels, and they always have been—this is not a new thing—right from the days when the ferries were first introduced. When they first hit the river, they were always operated by a third party. They have never been operated by Council, and that has been an ongoing thing. Always the operator is responsible for maintenance, and always Council pays good money for that maintenance to occur.
If you have a look at the subsidy that we’re putting into ferries this year, it’s over $30 million. That’s on top of anything the State Government puts in. So, as you know, the State Government collects the fares, and they do pay us some money to run the ferry services, but we top that up with more than $30 million extra of ratepayers’ money to help support high-quality services.
Now, to be clear, Council had one of the monohull ferries out of the water earlier this year to do some investigation works when it comes to DDA upgrades. Now, we know that these vessels are old and when they were built—and some of them are approaching 40 years old; they’re all over 30 years old—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
5/2020-21
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor Krista ADAMS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, please continue.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. So, as I was pointing out, we know that the vessels are old, and we know that they don’t meet current standards when it comes to disability access, and we know that the disability access standards have increased and improved over time, and people rightly expect that public transport now is accessible for all.
So, we were doing some investigation works into how we can upgrade and improve the ferries for that purpose. We identified some items of concern as we were doing that work and as we were doing the investigation. So, we acted to commission further work, and the very day that we received advice that the vessels were potentially unsafe, we acted immediately. That is what happened. Now we are, as I’ve stated repeatedly, finalising that assessment of the condition of the vessels to make sure that we absolutely have a very clear picture of the state of all of them.
Now, originally, we had concerns with one vessel as we did that work on the disability investigation. Based on that, we asked for some work to be done on other vessels, and then, 10 days ago, give or take, we were told that two of those vessels needed to come off the water immediately, and that the independent advisor or surveyor had concerns about all of the vessels. So, we have done the right thing here. We have protected public safety. We have acted quickly and decisively.
As Labor knows full well, we don’t have finalised assessments yet, but the minute we do, we have committed to making them public and to providing them in a very public and transparent way. But we can’t provide what we do not have. Until we have finalised assessments, then we’re not in a position to actually report on the true status of the vessels. I can tell you: having partial information out there is not going to benefit anyone.
So, we will make sure that it is a thorough assessment and it is one that is rigorously tested and involves not only independent experts but also the Maritime Safety Authority as well, which is the Federal agency I referred to earlier, and that is the right thing to do. So, Labor should stop playing politics with this matter and just understand that safety does have to be a top priority.
Whatever Labor might say, we are committed to continuing the cross river services and continuing the CityHopper service. We love the CityHopper service, and so do the people of Brisbane. We introduced the CityHopper service, and we made it free, and it has been a fantastic asset for the people of Brisbane. We have consistently said we want to get those services back on board.
Labor, on the other hand, have continued to try and muddy the waters and suggest there’s some kind of conspiracy. They’re trying to suggest that it’s either a cost-saving measure or they’re trying to suggest that, no, we want to cancel the cross river services or the CityHopper, and this is some conspiracy being cooked up here. It is really quite extraordinary. Once again, another window into how Labor thinks. We know that Labor are the party that took away the trams from Brisbane, and we know that there was a mysterious fire at one of the—
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Listen, as riveting as this is, what does this have to do with our E&C Report before us. We’ve been going for 15 minutes now.
Chair: All right. The LORD MAYOR is permitted to speak at large on matters of concern to the city, and he is addressing some issues—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Allow me to conclude this first one. He has, under the rules, the ability to make general statements about issues of concern to the residents of Brisbane and to the Brisbane City Council.
Councillor SRI, your point of order, please.
Councillor SRI: Actually, I’m really excited about the CityCat stop announcement for Kangaroo Point. I was just wondering if the Mayor would take a quick question.
Chair: You know that that’s not how we do this. There’s a—
Councillor SRI: But you don’t know what the question is about yet.
Chair: Yes, I do. Please don’t do it like that in the future, but LORD MAYOR, would you take a question?
LORD MAYOR: Yes, sure. Look, I’m glad that at least one Councillor is interested in what I have to say.
Chair: All right. Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. Through you to the LORD MAYOR, and I am genuinely really excited about that announcement, and really grateful that the Mayor’s office and the public transport officers have been working constructively with my office and taking our requests on board. I just wondered if the Mayor could clarify if that intention for the CityCats to stop at Holman Street, is that going to continue even after the cross river ferry services are restored, and can you give us any indication of whether that’s a permanent change or at this stage are you saying it’s only a temporary one?
LORD MAYOR: Thanks for the question, and look, certainly the aim is to try and fill the gap when it comes to the existing cross river service and the triangle service that is now not operating. So, that’s certainly our intention. That’s the short-term aim there. But look, I am also happy to consider longer term option as well.
We are investing in our fleet, so whether it’s doing work on the monohull ferries or whether it’s delivering the new double-decker CityCats, which we’ve committed to significantly, as we bring more vessels on, we can potentially provide a higher level of service there. So, that is an option that is available in the future, potentially. But, at this stage, the key priority is to deal with that short-term inconvenience that’s there.
But having said that, a little bit of history for you, Councillor SRI. I was the unsuccessful candidate for the seat of East Brisbane in 2004 Council election, where I missed out by about 250 votes on winning that ward. Kangaroo Point was part of that ward. I remember back in 2004, one of the issues that was consistently coming up, people wanted access to the CityCat in Kangaroo Point.
So, look, I’m very aware that this has been a long desire of the people of Kangaroo Point, and that is something that I have in the back of my mind, and I’m aware of. As we get the capacity to provide more services, then that is something that I will consider going forward. So, to be clear, it’s not a definite yes, but it’s something I’m willing to consider going forward. So, hopefully, that answers your question.
Now, in terms of Councillor STRUNK, your party moved an urgency motion on the matter of the monohull ferries, and I have been talking at length about some of the issues here, and I feel that you were trying to gag me from talking about this matter. So, once again, I am more than happy to talk fulsomely about this issue.
There is no plan to stop the CityHopper service. There is no plan to reduce services. We are committed to improving services. So, any suggestion otherwise is just wrong, is simply wrong. As I pointed out before, we are also keen to support the staff who are also impacted by this. The ferry masters, the staff who would normally operate those nine monohull ferries, we continue to make sure that they are paid, even though the ferries aren’t working. So, once again, not some kind of cost-saving initiative here. The reality is we—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: I believe the LORD MAYOR might be misleading the Chamber and—
Chair: We do not have that point of order anymore.
LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, you don’t get to do that. Please, Councillor CASSIDY, please do not interject anymore.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Councillor CASSIDY obviously thinks that Transdev is some kind of charity. Where does Transdev get their money from? They get it from Council who pays them to provide a service. So, the point I am making is that we are continuing—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections.
LORD MAYOR: We’re continuing to pay Transdev even though they are not providing all of the services that they would normally provide.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY, I consider that you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct, and in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001, I hereby request that you cease interjecting and refrain from exhibiting this conduct in the meeting.
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. But I just want to make it clear for everyone: we will get services up and running as soon as we believe it is safe to do so. We will get the independent expert advice. We will get the finalised inspections and we will make them public. We will release them. I have no doubt at all that we have made the right decision here. There is no doubt in my mind.
Now, it would be great if the vessels could come back with only some minor repairs; that would be fantastic. But we are yet to see the extent of any repairs that might need to be made. So, it is difficult at this time to speculate on when the full resumption of services will occur. But we will do everything we can to bring those services back up again, as soon as it is safe to do so, and we remain committed to improving ferry services on the Brisbane River, to supporting this great form of transport in our river city.
Our commitment is ongoing and once again represented by the fact that we have ordered seven new double-decker CityCats. So, any question about our financial commitment to ferry services, you know, all you have to do is have a look at that. We are upgrading, and we are supercharging river transport in our city. We are providing better river transport than ever before. That is our aim; that is our ambition, and we have funded that appropriately as well.
So, moving on to the items before us, we have the contracts and tendering report for May 2020. There’s a number of items there which are worthy of a mention. I will point out as well that we continue to do what we can to make sure that we’re supporting local business and local contractors and adding—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Move for an extension.
6/2020-21
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor Krista ADAMS, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, please.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. The local buy initiative I was talking about, we continue to add a very high weighting in all of our assessment for local benefits, and that continues to be the case.
If you have a look at contract number 9 in the reports here, it’s the one I referred to just before, which is the order for CityCat 24 and CityCat 25 to be constructed by Aus Ships here in Murarrie, a $7.8 million contract to deliver two new double-decker CityCats designed by local people, built by local people, supporting local jobs, and using local materials and services. That’s our commitment to supporting local business, and that’s our commitment to river transport as well. We’re investing in it; we’re passionate about it, and that continues.
There’s also a range of other projects including just the basics like roadside litter collection services, an investment of $3.8 million over the five-year term, potentially up to that amount, in just dealing with the issue of keeping Brisbane clean, green and sustainable, and those basics that are really important. So, we have that item.
Then we have at item B the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade significant contracting plan, another project that I’m really excited about. This is going to be a major boost for anyone living in the western suburbs of Brisbane, because as we know, in that part of Brisbane, there are only a number of ways in and out of suburbs in the west, and so many people each day have to pass through the Indooroopilly roundabout. Not only is it congested, but it’s also a safety issue as well, with a number of accidents happening each year at that intersection. So, we’re progressing in partnership with the Federal Government to upgrade that intersection. We’ve been out to the community already with a number of design options. The community has spoken. We’re moving forward, and we’re excited about getting that project up and running.
But I also want to thank the Federal Government in particular for increasing their contribution to this project. Initially they put a contribution on the table of $25 million. Now, this was before it was clear what the total cost of the project would be. We knew it would be a large project, but obviously the cost of the project is informed by the design. The design is something we’ve been doing consultation on and finessing.
We went back to the Federal Government and said, well, this project is going to be a significant one, but it’s going to create jobs, it’s going to improve safety, and it’s going to increase the capacity of this major corridor, so they agreed to add an extra $25 million to their contribution, taking the total contribution to $50 million. So, I want to thank particularly Julian Simmonds who knows the intersection very well and is very passionate about this improvement, and the Federal Government and Minister Tudge in particular for their efforts in coming back with additional funding for that project. So, I’m very excited about the next steps of this process, and with the support of Council, we’ll be moving forward as quickly as possible on that project.
Item C is the report regarding the lease of Council land to community organisations. These types of reports come through on a periodic basis, where we’re approving the awarding of leases to various community organisations. They do need formal approval. Councillor HOWARD will speak in further detail about this one. I will leave my comments at that, after having two extensions. Thank you for your patience.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Seriatim - Clause C
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause C, LEASE OF COUNCIL LAND TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS, be taken seriatim for voting |
|purposes. |
Councillor CASSIDY: So, clause A, Chair, contracts and tendering, again there’s 14 contracts before us today, more than $32 million in total, and the actual—well, certainly, a lot more than $32 million, because contract 11, the renewal of the 2020-2021 corporate insurance program isn’t included in the total as it’s commercial in confidence, so we do know that the total value of these contracts is significantly more, and again we’re seeing increasingly these contracts not going out to tender.
I went up to level 23 again and found no additional information. I thought I would check and give the benefit of the doubt to the Administration to go and see what was on file for these contracts and have certainly called the file on many of these and haven’t received those yet. So, there’s very little in terms of information, so I’ll go through a process here and seek some information for Councillors here today.
So, contract 1 is to provide traffic signal hardware and components. This contract didn’t go to full tender; rather, these were selected from a preferred supplier panel, almost $1 million. At first glance, Chair, it seems pretty straightforward, but it does raise questions, like how the installations will be delivered; how does it compare to previous contracts? It says value for money isn’t applicable in this case, but surely, we need to know, and Brisbane residents deserve to know whether this contract does in fact present good value for money.
Contract 2, sewer relocation, other works at Grey Street, South Brisbane, a big contract, $11 million—again would normally seem pretty straightforward, but there’s no information in the papers or on file. How will the disruptions be managed by this contractor? What are the risks of relocating the sewer and how will they be managed?
Contract 3, upgrades to parks at Murarrie and Alderley, a $630,000 contract. It would be good to seek some information as to what’s being delivered exactly. We know on other projects, COVID-19 has impacted on the supply chain for park projects. The LORD MAYOR talks a lot about local procurement. We know that other projects have been affected in the recent months, so how are those impacts of COVID-19 being managed?
Contract 4, bus stop accessibility program. So, this is a $2.5 million contract. We know from the budget information sessions just gone that there will be a significant number of bus stops that will remain left intact, that will not be upgraded. So, how many bus stops will be upgraded through this $2.5 million project, and how many exactly will be left inaccessible? It was suggested there will be something around 400 at the budget information session, so some further information on that would certainly be appreciated.
Contract 5 is pipe relining at Norman Park, a $300,000 contract. This one is awarded to a supplier offering the cheapest price, which may have impacted on the value for money assessment. It was almost $75,000 more than the closest tenderer, not an issue in and of itself, I suppose, but does raise questions about how that tenderer was able to offer a price significantly lower, so is that work going to be done in a different way to others who were seeking that contract?
Lookout upgrades, contract 6, is over half a million dollars, again significantly cheaper than other tenderers—half the price in some cases. So, what is the big difference, and what is being delivered under this contract versus what would be delivered under a different contractor?
Story Bridge temporary access and encapsulation systems for spans 1 to 3, contract 7, which is a $1.8 million contract, this is, I suppose, part and parcel of works for an 80-year-old bridge. However, there’s very little details on exactly what is being delivered in this 12-month contract. What will be undertaken in this work is my question to the relevant Chair.
Contract 8, Energex relocation works at River Terrace and Main Street, a $380,000 contract. It seems straightforward for Energex to relocate electricity services, but we do know from the track record of this Administration, some of those service relocations are not exactly straightforward.
Contract 9, order for the replacement of CityCats 24 and 25. This is a $7.8 million contract, and the one thing I would suggest this one is that the LORD MAYOR and the Administration, if they don’t intend on reusing names of previous CityCats, they get cracking on finding a suitable name, because that is an item that is coming up before us, and quite clearly a deficiency in this Administration’s ability to manage the transition to new CityCats. Council didn’t seek tenders to put these CityCats out, as they were under a preferred supplier, under existing arrangements. The budget allocation is $11 million for this, so the $7.8 million raises some questions potentially around timing, but further information will be appreciated there.
Contract 10, event management for Musgrave Park. This is an item where Council is paying a Council-owned company called City Parkland Services nearly $220,000 to manage events in Musgrave Park. There’s no tender process. It’s granted to a Council-owned corporation, and another one that was deemed exempt from tendering. So, it would be good to know is this value for money? What is being delivered here, and what are the impacts going forward under this contract of COVID-19 on events that would otherwise be held at Musgrave Park, and what happens to that money if those events do not proceed, Chair?
Contract 11, 12-months’ worth of corporate insurance for Council; the total amount is commercial in confidence, so I cannot make mention of that or publicly reveal the total amount. The contract process was outsourced to Council’s insurance broker at arm’s length from Council, but it does prompt questions about the detail of these contracts and the nature of insurance coverage, and whether it is best value for money. So, I’m sure the relevant Chair, whether that is Councillor ALLAN or someone else, can give some information about that.
Contract 12, software licence fees and support maintenance for SCATS, the $1.5 million contract for SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System). For those playing at home, this system runs Council’s traffic signals across the city. This is a big contract. Are there enhancements under the new contract? Are there plans to improve travel across all modes of transport, as we are looking for ways to shift people away from car-dependent travel? Does this take into account that? Has Council undertaken reviews of the SCATS system to determine whether it’s still the best software for Brisbane in managing our road network, or potentially was there something that is better for Brisbane? So, some information on that would be fantastic.
Contract 13, roadside litter collection services, around almost $4 million over the five-year term of the contract, we certainly hope as a result of the LORD MAYOR’s decision to cancel kerbside collection, we don’t see an increase in cost in this contract after the inevitable increase in illegal dumping following the LORD MAYOR’s decision. We certainly welcome the inclusion of social enterprises as part of this contract. However, they’re a very small part of the contract, given the commercial contractor is costing $700,000 a year, and it is a shame that there isn’t an opportunity to open this up to more social enterprises through this process.
The final contract, training marketing solution, about $250,000 contract for online training, again competitive tenders weren’t sought for this contract. It was another example of sole sourcing. I’m sure this isn’t the only solution on the market that Council could have accessed, so what type of training will be delivered, and who will be trained?
Again, we’ve presented—I’ve put a lot of questions out there; history shows when I’ve done this, we’ve received very little information back. No detail is included in the contract documents that are given to us as Councillors, Chair. There is no information that is kept on file. We’re not here to rubberstamp decisions of this Administration or Council’s delegate, for that matter. We do have a responsibility to oversee these decisions. So, we will certainly wait to see what the relevant Chairs and the LORD MAYOR present in terms of information before we determine how we will vote on this item.
In terms of clause B, the Stores Board submission, the construction of the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade, Council is seeking approval of a significant contracting plan for the construction of the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade project. It is something that the LNP has been talking about and promising for at least the past 10 years. The planned upgrade is to replace the roundabout with an overpass for Coonan Street, allowing Moggill Road traffic to flow through uninterrupted.
However, when you get to the detail of this project, it sounds an awful lot like another project we’ve been talking about over the last couple of years, Kingsford Smith Drive. The estimated cost of this project is more than (Comments removed at the request of the CEO, in accordance with the AP068 Production of Council Minutes Policy approved by Council on 8 August 2012), but the estimated travel time savings for motorists in the AM peak is a whopping 43 seconds, and in the PM peak an enormous 26 seconds. So, the amount of money that is being put on the table for this road solution—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired.
7/2020-21
At that point, Councillor Jared CASSIDY was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Kara COOK, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. So, what we see here is a whopping amount of money for this road project that is going to deliver, in the very best case, in the morning peak period a 43 second travel time saving, and a 26 second travel time saving in the afternoon peak. So, you’ve got to wonder, is that really the best bang for buck when it comes to the ratepayers’ money.
When you read the report, it shows there is a higher risk against this project in relation to the public utility plan, and given the LNP’s track record with massive cost blowouts and time blowouts on projects, and key projects like the Kingsford Smith Drive project, Chair, Labor Councillors have very little confidence that this Administration can deliver this project, especially with the prospect of hidden underground services. We’ve seen that is an issue on the Metro; we’ve seen that is an issue on Kingsford Smith Drive, and we don’t yet see the detailed design of this project of how these items will be managed.
There’s a distinct lack of planning regarding cyclist and pedestrian connectivity. It’s vital that Council’s road projects aren’t making active travel less safe and travel times worse for those modes, particularly at a time when we should be making that much, much better. There’s no detail at all on what’s planned for pedestrians and cyclists for these works. Cycling advocate groups, including Space for Cycling and Brisbane West BUG group, have raised these concerns, and raised them late last year.
Brisbane West BUG said that the Brisbane City Council had settled on option B for the Moggill Road roundabout replacement at Indooroopilly. They didn’t expect a more detailed design, but incorporated feedback worryingly makes things worse from a cycling perspective. The next stage is critical, as Council progresses to a detailed design of this part of the principal cycle network, and requires low stress, high quality separated environment suitable for people of all ages and abilities. If that’s not included in the detailed design, it will never happen, and Brisbane West BUG (Bicycle User Group) say they will do their best to make sure it’s incorporated.
Now, we’ve got this significant contracting plan before us, but with no detail about how those risks are going to be managed, and how a proper connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists is going to be enhanced. So, we certainly have serious concerns about how this project is going to proceed.
Clause C, the lease of Council land to community organisations, as the LORD MAYOR said, this is an item that Council is now required to bring through to enter into leases with community groups. We certainly hope that these will be expedited. I know from experience in talking to sporting organisations and community groups in my ward who are struggling with the stresses of COVID-19 are also struggling with the stresses of not having their leases renewed, some of which submitted their paperwork in August 2018, and are still awaiting an email or a call back from Council’s leasing officers who are significantly under the pump now with the COVID-19 response through Council.
So, what we certainly would like to see is more support, and we reiterate our call for better COVID-19 support for our community organisations, and that extends not only to the financial space but also supporting them through their leasing negotiations as well.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman; I rise to speak on the E&C Report, items A, B and C. Firstly, just with respect to item C, I certainly welcome the exemption process for the Council community leases. I do still think this is a bit back to front, that Councillors should be consulted prior to the matter coming to Council instead of afterwards, which is what they’re doing now. But I just think that would speed the whole process up and be a lot quicker. But, you know, that’s just my view.
Certainly, there are a lot of groups in my ward who are listed for lease renewals. We don’t have any information about how long, so it’s very difficult to understand which groups are getting which leases and for how long, and certainly that’s always interesting to see which groups get extended leases, and that information is not provided in the papers today. Hopefully it will be at least at the next opportunity or at least to Councillors through the consultation process.
Just with respect to item A, the contracts and tendering report, I just note a couple of issues in here. Given that, you know, I’ve raised it today, I note that contract number 6 is Views of Brisbane Lookout upgrade. There’s $544,522 being allocated for an unknown project upgrade. Perhaps Councillor CUNNINGHAM will enlighten us. But, given the Francis Outlook is at risk and the environmental, historic, social and cultural values of the park are at risk from the adjacent development, I would certainly hope that some of the half a million dollars allocated to the Views of Brisbane Outlook upgrades is going towards the Francis Lookout, and I look forward to confirming whether that’s the case. It needs a bit of investment.
The only thing Council has done in my term up there is put trees in, when no one asked for them, and actually try and plant out the outlook, which was contrary to the heritage listing, but we got that fixed.
The second thing of concern here is, contract number 11, City of Brisbane Investment Corporation (CBIC), combined general liability, Allianz, why is Council, the corporation, paying for the CBIC’s insurance? They are set up as a proprietary company owned by Council; why aren’t they undertaking their own administration? Why isn’t the CBIC, out of the funds that it allegedly makes—it makes a lot of money, and to be fair, it is all Council money, it’s just in the giant whirlpool of Council pays it to CBIC and then they pay some back to Council—but why is Brisbane City Council paying the CBIC’s insurance? Why is that not being done as part of the proprietary company’s corporate and governance responsibilities?
Perhaps Councillor ALLAN will enlighten us about why we are subsidising the CBIC when they allegedly have, I don’t know what it’s up to now, maybe $160 million or something—do they not have enough for their insurance? Is that something we have to pay for now, you know, the ratepayers of Brisbane? So, I just question why that’s included in the suite of insurance programs.
But the big issue before us today is the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade. There are three things that I’m going to speak to very briefly, because I don’t have very long. Firstly, this has been a significant problem for residents in southern suburbs, and I note the LORD MAYOR, who is no longer part of the meeting, talked only about the benefits for the western suburbs, and did not talk about any benefits for the residents of the southern suburbs of Brisbane who live in the south-western corridor. It is across the Walter Taylor Bridge, Coonan Street and then the roundabout is the only way north for the residents who live in the peninsula, comprising of Chelmer, Graceville, Sherwood, Corinda and Oxley. So, what happens at this roundabout is a significant issue for my residents.
I’ve been engaged in this process for many years, going right back to when Council purchased the roundabout and I first started calling for a flyover to be built. In my view, the first of these issues is the project scope is not correct. Now, the LORD MAYOR said that residents were given a number of options. They were given two. One was not acceptable, which left option B as the default option. Most residents I know, including myself, raised serious detailed concerns about the scope of the project in the concept design, all of which were ignored.
I still retain very significant concerns about the scope of the project for traffic, for pedestrians and for cyclists. To build a brand-new road without any cycling facilities is really problematic. Whilst some minor changes were made to the scope of the project, they do not address the concerns raised by residents in the south-western suburbs, cyclists or pedestrians fully.
We were promised—promised—in early 2020 a preliminary design. It’s now mid-2020, and no preliminary design has been provided for further feedback. We were then promised—and this is all publicly announced by the LNP last year when they put out their flash marketing material—preliminary design early 2020, detailed design mid-2020, business case mid-2020; well, we’re into mid-2020 and we haven’t even seen the preliminary design from early 2020.
Now, Council is coming into this place and asking Councillors to approve a significant contracting plan without any information about the design of the project other than what was provided on a glossy brochure. That is absolutely unacceptable. Council has not yet met its timeframes with respect to the information it has promised to provide to our community, and we cannot proceed to contracting without that discussion with the community. This Council is letting us down by failing to meet its own benchmarks.
Now, I’m extremely concerned about these failures. The LNP has made promises here and they have not delivered on those promises. The reason it is of great concern is this significant contracting plan will not come back to Council. All of the decisions about this project will now be made behind closed doors by the Executive Manager of the City Projects Office, and that’s it. Stores Board will be involved.
It will never come back to this Council for due consideration or oversight where we, the Councillors who represent the residents, who are concerned about this project—and yes, everybody wants it to be safer, yes, everybody wants to get to work and home quicker and more safely; that’s not under debate here. The issue is getting the design right, getting value for money out of the contract and making sure that there is oversight and transparency in the way this Council makes decisions, and that is not occurring.
The cost of the project, which is outlined in the 2020-21 budget, which is just over (Comments removed at the request of the CEO, in accordance with the AP068 Production of Council Minutes Policy approved by Council on 8 August 2012), is just eye-watering. I suspect it also won’t be enough. It is extremely concerning to see that the design itself is not suitable in my view. That is because it is not a proper flyover. Council has still put a T-intersection and traffic lights on the overpass, so a flyover is different to an overpass.
The overpass over Moggill Road has a hard T-intersection with the Moggill Road slip lane, and traffic coming from—and this is the part the LNP haven’t worked out yet—Indooroopilly residents, Fig Tree Pocket residents, as well as all the residents on my side of the river who use Coonan Street, are going to get stuck. Not only will they be stuck at the lights; they then have to merge down into Moggill Road, and in all my discussions there’s been no detail on how long the slip lane will be, what the merge facility will be. None of this information has been provided. These are all issues that I’ve raised repeatedly with Council last year.
Despite Council’s promises—again, this is the LNP’s promises about this—of providing the preliminary design in early 2020 to residents, this is what it said: Council will seek further community feedback once the detailed design is developed. That hasn’t happened. Meanwhile, we’re going out to tender for the project.
Council is putting the cart before the horse, and this is where projects go wrong. This is a really important project to get right for everybody. There’s so many wards in the southern suburbs, in the western suburbs, that have to negotiate Coonan Street and Moggill Road—
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Further speakers?
Councillor MACKAY.
Councillor MACKAY: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak on item B, the construction of the Indooroopilly roundabout. For as long as I can remember, the Indooroopilly roundabout located at the intersection of Moggill Road and Coonan Street has been a dangerous intersection. I remember sadly when a very good friend of mine was involved in a serious accident at the site some years ago. He was shaken up but not badly hurt. He was luckier than others. This intersection is notoriously dangerous and has a dark history of traffic accidents and incidents.
Of course, if you’ve travelled through the intersection in recent years, Chair, you’d know that it’s actually not technically a roundabout but is now instead an intersection with three critical pinch points and traffic lights. The lane structure can be confusing, and sometimes drivers aren’t sure where they should be positioned to head north, south or west.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, no interjections please.
Councillor MACKAY.
Councillor MACKAY: As Councillor for the Walter Taylor Ward, I speak on behalf of the local community when I say they’re looking forward to huge safety upgrades, and an east-west passage that doesn’t stop with traffic lights. It shows that Councillor CASSIDY is out of touch, Chair, when he lambasted the project and didn’t even speak of the fantastic safety improvements that this project will see.
Chair, I’m thrilled that Brisbane City Council is continuing the upgrade of the Indooroopilly roundabout project. It will involve constructing an overpass that takes Coonan Street over Moggill Road, allowing through traffic on Moggill Road to flow freely; upgrading the existing Moggill Road service road which will connect the Coonan Street overpass with Moggill Road; changing access at Keating Street to remove the right turn in and out to improve the safety; changing access at Payne Street to remove the left turn in, which will improve safety and traffic flow on Moggill Road; changing the access at Nelson Parade to a no-through road due to its poor sightlines for merging vehicles and existing road constraints; providing additional sections of footpath through the project area; retaining the left turn access from Moggill Road into Stamford Road so those people who want to visit the small retailers on Stamford Road opposite Indooroopilly Shopping Centre can continue to do so; and, of course, the Men’s Shed on Stamford will have their access continued from Moggill Road.
Just like all the other local residents in Walter Taylor who use the roundabout, I’m sure you’d be pleased to know that Council has started additional survey works and geo-technical investigations just recently. You might be aware, Chair, there was substantial community consultation conducted last year. This saw web traffic, mail and in-person consultation held locally, conducted to understand what people were most concerned about, and that gave us the overpass option.
Continuing the Schrinner Administration’s commitment to this community consultation, a letter about the most recent works was distributed to approximately 1,500 residents near the work sites just recently. Finally, I’m thrilled that buses travelling along Moggill Road will soon not need to battle with the dangerous intersection to continue their travels east and west. This will increase the attractiveness of public transport into the future, which means fewer cars on the road and less traffic congestion.
Chair: Further speakers—
Councillor LANDERS: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor LANDERS.
ADJOURNMENT:
|8/2020-21 |
|At that time, 4.02pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON, that the meeting |
|adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors have left the meeting. |
| |
|Council stood adjourned at 4.04pm. |
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chair: Welcome back, Councillors.
Are there any further speakers?
I see no—Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to respond to a couple of the comments that were made earlier in debate, particularly in relation to Councillor CASSIDY asking about some of the contracts. So, I just want to point out, contract 1 to which he referred relates to the procurement of traffic signal hardware, provision of traffic signal components and the supply and delivery of stainless-steel light pole—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point or order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON. Can you please return to the screen?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Councillor McLACHLAN just said he is responding to Councillor CASSIDY, but the convention is that you say what you’re speaking to with respect to E&C, so if we could just draw him back to that, please.
Chair: Thank you. Look, I’ve got to say, I didn’t particularly notice, but I will remind Councillors that, when they speak to these things, they are required to note with item they’re speaking to. Can all comments be directed towards the Chair as well. So, that’s just a general comment for all.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you to Councillor JOHNSTON, I know she’s a pedant for process, so that’s noted and appreciated for bringing that to my attention. I propose to speak on items A and B, so thank you very much for that.
In relation to the items, through you, Mr Chair, that Councillor CASSIDY raised in relation to the procurement of traffic signal hardware, provision of traffic signal components and the supply and delivery of stainless-steel light pole footings, these were corporate procurement arrangements with a panel of preferred supplier arrangements that were in place, so three different CPAs as they are called.
They expired on 31 May, but a pre-market was approved in December to replace these three CPAs via a public tender, but issues related to COVID-19 meant that the post market submissions be ready for approval in July. So, this is a continuation of those corporate procurement arrangements for the time being until they go out to tender. So that response to that particular issue.
There was an issue related to the Story Bridge work, and congratulations to all who have been involved in the Story Bridge in its 80th birthday, in particular. As we know, this is a great asset of the city that needs a considerable amount of work to keep it looking spick and span, and that there are arrangements in place to repaint, to protect the steel structure of the bridge.
This particular element is for a temporary access and encapsulation system which basically means scaffolding covered so that a section of the steel span can be repainted, and this will inform the methodology for future work on what they call the warren trusses, which isn’t a former Deputy Prime Minister; it’s actually the technical term for the way the bridge has been constructed, with warren trusses. So, this particular element is for the scaffolding that will go up on one section of the bridge to do some pre-work, if you like, that will inform the wider contract for the recoating and protection of the bridge, which will be a long-term project.
The other element there was relating to works at the intersection of River Terrace and Main Street, Kangaroo Point, and this is for work that Energex needs to do, relocation works for Energex as part of that project, which is on time, on budget, but very important work being undertaken there. That particular element is for the relocation of works that were in the ground, Energex assets in particular, relation of Energex assets, not contestable, undertaken by Energex. So, that’s works that can’t go out to tender.
The other item was the significant contracting plan at item B for the Indooroopilly roundabout. Look, there was a lot said that was unrelated to this particular item, because this is essentially the significant contracting plan requirements that we have that allows for the early tender involvement for the project. So, this is a process that Council has undertaken on other significant projects. We short list a number of suitable contractors and engage with them through the detailed design process that allows them to have an input into the design.
But the critical element of this particular project, since the debate ranged wide beyond the issue that’s particularly before us for consideration of the significant contracting plan, is that this is a project about saving people’s lives. I heard the debate from Councillors earlier, and there was a fair bit of discussion on this. Councillor MACKAY nailed it when he talked about it. It is about road safety, because that’s what this project is about.
This is an intersection with a high crash history, lots of recorded incidents, many requiring hospitalisation and medical treatment. A design has been out to public consultation and resulted overwhelmingly with support for the upgrade, based on the fact that people are concerned about the safety at this intersection. It’s a roundabout that is operating above capacity during peak hour periods, and the design will address those issues, in particular, the safety issues.
So, in terms of what’s before us specifically, it’s to talk about the significant contracting plan that will allow for early tenderer involvement through an EOI (expression of interest) process, and this allows us to get on as quickly as possible with a job-generating project, as all these projects are.
This project, all the contract and tendering reports that we saw earlier, all about issuing contracts to essentially Brisbane-based contracting groups to allow them to employ people, to get on and to help us to revive the economy, but also to make sure in this particular case, at item B, with the Indooroopilly roundabout, improve the safety for all road users on that particular stretch of road. So, a great project and a great process to get it under way. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair; I join the debate to speak on item A, contracts and tendering, May 2020, and in particular in relation to contracts 11, 12 and 14. So contract 11 is the renewal of the 2020-2021 corporate insurance program and I know Councillor CASSIDY raised a couple of questions about this one. So this contract is for insurance contracts for the period 31 May 2020 to 31 May 2021. As noted by Councillor CASSIDY, this is arranged on Council's behalf by its insurance broker, Marsh Pty Limited, under a preferred-supplier arrangement for establishing insurance arrangements for Council and the renewal of Council's membership of the Local Government Mutual Services (LGMS), which expired on 30 June 2020 and this is through Local Government Mutual Queensland.
Now, Council's insurable risks are managed in an integrated program, incorporating risk transfer, where we purchase commercial insurance from a range of suppliers, also via the membership of the Local Government Mutual Services to cover the majority of our liability risks and then risk retention where we self-insure for specific types of risk. Five out of the 15 commercial insurers who are—who comprise this program are locally based, along with LGMS, who is also a local operator.
Now, the insurers in this program include AIG Insurance Limited. Some very big names in this program: HDI Global, AXA Corporate Solutions, Zurich Australia Insurance Limited, AAI Limited, Chubb, Excel Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance, Allianz, Sportscover, QBE Insurance, Allianz Marine and Transit Underwriting Agency and the Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, so a wide range of insurers covering, in some cases, very specific risks. Now, to the somewhat tenuous point that Councillor JOHNSTON made about Council covering or arranging insurance for CBIC, I suspect, that she was trying to stitch together some kind of conspiracy, but the truth is however somewhat more mundane.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: In effect, what happens is CBIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brisbane City Council and it made sense for this particular type of insurance to be arranged through Council's umbrella policy. It's more efficient—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: —it's cheaper and it's also worth bearing in mind that CBIC reimburses for the premium that is captured under this policy. There are separate insurances that CIBC have that they undertake directly with the market that aren't covered by Council's insurance. So, Councillor JOHNSTON, nothing much to see there. Now, contract 12, SCATS. This contract is the for the software licence fees and support and maintenance of the SCATS system. For those of you who don't know, that stands for Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic Systems.
Council uses SCATS as the traffic-signal-management system to manage Brisbane's road network. This contract is an extension of the current arrangement with the New South Wales Department of Roads and Maritime Services for licensing fees, support and maintenance. SCATS has proven itself in cities across the world, providing real and measurable reductions in road travel time and network delays and it's worth bearing in mind it's installed at approximately 42,000 intersections across 1,800 cities in 40 countries. Council has been using SCATS since 2010.
SCATS maximises road network use, with real-time adaptive control and self-calibration and minimises manual intervention with functionality to adapt traffic-signal timing to deal with unexpected conditions and minimise delays. This ultimately reduces traffic management operational costs. Now, to Councillor CASSIDY's point, Council would face significant cost and disruption if it were to replace SCATS. This would include the cost of procurement from another supplier, the installation, the configuration and staff training, so there are very few operators in the world who offer this type of solution and accordingly we've chosen to continue with the SCATS solution.
Onto contract 14, which was the training marketplace solution. A key component of Council's learning and development strategy is administered through corporate mandatory training and individual professional development courses. Council's existing workplace learning technology does not account for self-service learning opportunities. This is where a staff member can go online and learn something in a specific domain. So the current portal is not coping with the increased volume of remote users to deliver mandatory training during COVID-19. To address such a gap in the interim, this contract is for a temporary solution with training platform Go1.
The Go1 training marketplace solution is a standalone training portal, consisting of more than 70,000 courses, which can be preselected and assigned by managers. This platform will enable Council employees to upskill and invest in their professional development whilst working remotely. Go1 is a locally-based Brisbane company and employs more than 90 employees. To Councillor CASSIDY's point through you, Mr Chair, Go1 is considered to be the only supplier capable of providing this solution and certainly we look forward to hearing the ultimate user experience and the results we get from using the Go1 solution. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. Just wanted to speak briefly on a couple of items. In particular, I'm interested in a little more detail from the LORD MAYOR about that contract for events management of Musgrave Park. I understand that might be something to do with South Bank Parklands taking a more active role in that space. It'd be good to get some more detail on that front. I'm obviously a little annoyed that I haven't heard more detail about that before it came to the Chamber for discussion and I would have some concerns about Musgrave Park becoming a hub for more citywide events that don't really include or fall under the direction and control of the local Aboriginal community.
I think that's likely to create significant conflict and cause a lot of issues if Council is trying to scale up the number of major events in Musgrave Park without the support of the Jagera Hall committee, the Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy and the various other Aboriginal community groups that have an active presence within and around Musgrave Park in South Brisbane.
So I'd be keen on some more guidance on that from the MAYOR or the DEPUTY MAYOR and perhaps also Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM might want to look into that in a little bit more detail and just get a bit more detail about how the Aboriginal community has been consulted about those possible changes to the use of Musgrave Park or exactly what forms of consultation have occurred would be—it'd be good to get a bit more information on that front. In terms of the River Terrace and Main Street intersection upgrade and the Energex contract there, Councillor McLACHLAN might have been correct to assert that it's on time and on budget, but it's certainly not a project that has the support of the local community.
We've had a look at the correspondence we've received, because we asked residents for feedback and wanted to know what people had to say about it. We cast quite a broad net. We tried to get outside the usual greenie bubble of active transport supporters. Councillor McLACHLAN, through you, Chair, I can honestly say there's really strong opposition to it. It's not just a vocal minority. I know there are some people who support the intersection upgrade and there are definitely some even local residents who really support adding those two lanes from—into River Terrace and keeping it four lanes southbound, two lanes northbound on the Main Street intersection.
But the vast majority of the local community is opposed to the current plans, as is every cycling advocacy group, pedestrian advocacy group I've talked to. From a public-space perspective, it's a really poor outcome. From an active transport and public transport perspective, it's a really poor outcome. There are significant concerns, even with converting the northbound stretch of Main Street down to two lanes through this intersection, because that potentially forecloses opportunities for bus jump lanes or future peak hour bus lanes along Main Street.
I've raised these concerns before, but I'm not sure that they've been taken very seriously by the public transport network planners, because there—I understand there is a desire long term to have bus lanes or bus jump lanes along Ipswich Road and Main Street, but if this intersection upgrade goes ahead and northbound corridor of Main Street is reduced down to two lanes, it's going to be significantly harder to achieve that. Councillor McLACHLAN previously advised the Chamber that there would be some form of potential signalised pedestrian crossing further along River Terrace and maybe the LORD MAYOR could speak to where that element of the project is at.
It seems like we're throwing a lot of money at an intersection-widening project that residents and the local Councillor don't want and meanwhile there's a clear demand for a signalised pedestrian crossing just a little further along River Terrace that residents really, really do want and that the local Councillor and myself really, really wants, but we haven't yet had any clear detail about whether that has attracted funding or where that process is up to.
Similarly, I know Councillor MURPHY was taking a closer look at this intersection and I remain concerned about the lack of safe routes for cyclists and pedestrians through this intersection, noting that the River Terrace/Main Street intersection is one of the key points on the route to the new Kangaroo Point pedestrian bridge. So, if we don't get this intersection right in terms of cyclists and pedestrian safety and connectivity, that's going to cause significant headaches in a couple of years' time.
I know some Councillors might not be—might feel like they're not going to be around by the time the Kangaroo Point Bridge is built, but I know a lot of residents are very concerned to make sure that this particular intersection upgrade does, indeed, take account of that future bridge project. I understand that currently the plan is that the footpath on the western side of this Main Street intersection is only going to be a shared footpath, 2.5 metres wide. That's what the Council has said it's going to do and that's what the road engineers say is sufficient, but from a cycling and pedestrian perspective, a 2.5-metre shared footpath is definitely not sufficient.
Councillor HOWARD will know from her experience representing an inner-city area that when you have high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists trying to access local footbridges and local pedestrian infrastructure, when the paths are too narrow, you get significant conflict and continual complaints from pedestrians and cyclists about the lack of space. So if we're creating a big new generator and an attractor for active transport, if we're putting a big new footbridge in Kangaroo Point that thousands of cyclists and thousands of pedestrians are going to be travelling to each day, we need to make sure that the footpath is wide enough and, yes, a 2.5-metre shared footpath simply isn't going to cut it.
I think it's a really glaring oversight within this project. I understand Council's Active Transport team is still looking at this as well, but it would seem to me really premature that we're going out to contract and we're starting work on the intersection, we're relocating services and moving stuff around and spending a lot of money on this intersection project, even though the Active Transport team hasn't yet finalised its recommendations about how the project can be redesigned to support cycling and pedestrian safety.
So, I have really strong concerns about that item in particular and I remain of the view that we shouldn't be allocating any more money to this project until we have a very clear idea of how it's going to be redesigned to support pedestrians and cyclists and until the community is actually supportive of the project. It seems really stupid to spend millions and millions of dollars on an intersection upgrade that the majority of local residents don't want.
If Council believes it actually—the majority of local residents do want this or that actually does have broad public support and that Councillor SRI is just detached from broad public sentiment and doesn't know what's going on, then I—my challenge to Councillor McLACHLAN and the MAYOR and to the LNP administration is to just run a survey. Put out a simple neutral survey that just provides the straightforward information about what's proposed and invites public submissions and feedback and responses and see what kind of response you get.
Just put out a survey and do the bare minimum of public consultation that you would normally do on a major intersection upgrade and see what residents think of your current proposal, because I think you'll find that the vast majority of residents strongly object to spending this much money on an intersection-widening project that is not going to solve the broader safety concerns and traffic congestion problems and is, in fact, going to funnel more traffic down River Terrace, which was not designed to cater for high volumes of through traffic.
So I might leave it there, but I'd just really encourage the MAYOR to look again more closely at this intersection project. There's no rush. There's no need to spend all the money at once. There's no need to barge ahead with a project that when—when we could take the time and get it right. I'm not saying the intersection doesn't need to be upgraded. I've already recommended changes that could be made, but I simply want this Administration to take the time to carefully consider it and to get the design right, so that we don't have to redesign this again in a year or two when the bridge goes through. Thanks.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I enter the debate to speak to item C, the lease of Council land to community organisations. Mr Chair, item C is seeking Council's approval to renew lease agreements for community organisations at 44 Council-owned sites. This in accordance with section 217 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012. As Council cannot enter into a valuable, non-current asset contract—in this case, a lease—in respect of land or contract for the disposal of land, unless it first invites written tenders for the contract or offers the valuable non-current asset for sale by auction.
So section 226(1) of the Regulation provides a number of exceptions that Council may apply to the disposal of an interest in land, other than by way of tender or auction, including, but not limited to land which is to be leased to a government agency or a community organisation. So with that little bit of legality that is very important, Mr Chair, item C is seeking Council's approval today to apply the exemption set out on this section of the Regulation, so that we can renew these 44 community leases without going to tender and therefore allowing us to continue delivering important community cultural and sport and recreation activities for the residents of Brisbane.
Mr Chair, all of the relevant local Councillors were informed via an email on 16 July 2020, of Council's intention to apply this exception and then also to continue the lease negotiations with the organisations within their ward, which are due to expire between January and June 2021. So that email clearly set out that this submission was necessary and that this would then trigger the next stage, which would then enable Council officers to negotiate a lease renewal and, of course, it provided information to the Councillors, together with a contact point for Councillors to contact our officers for any further information.
So through you, Mr Chair, this is a standard process that we go through each time community leases are due for renewal to ensure that community organisations can continue operating unhindered and I commend item C to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. I am speaking on item A, contracts and tendering. So the first contract there that relates to my portfolio is number 5, the pipe relining of Milsom Street, Norman Park. So the purpose of this contract is to reline approximately 230 linear metres of vitreous clay stormwater drainage pipeline from Milsom Street across C.F. Bottomley Park to Crown Street in Norman Park. This is because the existing 1,350-millimetre diameter pipe has multiple fractures, intrusions, defective connections and surface.
But work did commence on 25 May and the contractor had actually constructed a way to remove the water from the weir and they have located and opened-up the buried manhole by the cricket pitch. They are now cleaning the pipe out. They are still waiting on traffic permits and a temporary bus stop in Milsom Street and that has a VFM (value for money) of 24.34. The next contract in my portfolio is number 7, the Story Bridge spans. Now, whilst Story Bridge as an infrastructure itself was actually under David McLACHLAN as the Infrastructure Chair, this particular contract is pertaining to some work that Field Services will be doing under my portfolio.
Basically, if you'll remember, there is some really old footage when you see workers hanging out over a bridge without ropes or any kind of balustrading or anything like that and just painting away. Well, those days kind of are gone now. You can't do that anymore, so this is where we're actually creating some infrastructure onto the bridge, so that the workers can work safely in that space. The encapsulation system is all about what they will be basically sandblasting and water-blasting bits of the bridge. Traditionally, I would suggest maybe what they sandblasted off would just go into the water below.
As you can imagine, that's no longer acceptable as well these days, so that's where this is coming into it. So this is a whole piece of structure that will be attached to the bridge itself where therefore our workers can work quite safely and comfortably in carrying out the work they need to do, which is what Councillor McLACHLAN mentioned, which is about the repainting of the surface. The final contract in this—in my portfolio here is number 13, the roadside litter collection. As the LORD MAYOR mentioned, this is actually a basic, but very important service and contract that we're entering into.
There are a couple of suppliers here. We've actually got—three organisations have been awarded contracts: one is a commercial small-business-based contract and two being social enterprise. At it states there, the Jampak Pty Limited and then we've got Access Community Enterprise Limited and then Yourtown. So this is all about these guys walking the roads of our streets, boundary to boundary, paved surface, medians, footpaths and gardens area, basically picking up any rubbish or litter that may be in that space.
This does not include any large items which, as you know, the Good Neighbour program is going to be doing in that space. This is just about general litter on main streets throughout all of our wards and suburbs throughout Brisbane. So an excellent contract and I'm looking forward to being out there with these guys to see how they do their work, so thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Apologies.
Further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Chair. Just quickly, there was some inquiries made by the opposition in particular on two contracts and contracts in tendering today and that's what I'll be speaking to. So firstly the items for CityCats 24 and 25. Now, these are the second and third vessels to be delivered out of the new next-generation CityCats program. Council has committed $30 million over the next four years to deliver this next-gen fleet to replace the existing vessels, which are now nearing the end of their serviceable lifespan. Yoogera, our very first double-decker CityCat made its maiden voyage in November last year and CityCats 24 and 25 will join the first two new generation vessels next year.
We've had a really positive reception to Yoogera, including feedback on its design and passengers can expect to enjoy the same modern cruising experience onboard with CityCats 24 and 25 as Yoogera. These next-gen CityCats will have the ability to carry a total of 170 passengers, have an upper deck providing seating for 20 passengers and a rear deck for 16 passengers, as well as space for 10 bikes.
Up to six dedicated wheelchair and mobility scooter areas, as well as USB-charging ports and hearing-augmentation loops, so a suite of features there for passengers and visitors to Brisbane to enjoy. Now, these boats take around 30,000 manhours from design to completion and they're being built by Tommy and his fantastic team at Aus Ships in Murarrie, with the project employing 60 to 70 full-time and contract workers. So I think that's a great outcome.
This contract was extremely, extremely hotly contested when the tender came up to build these next-generation ships, there was—the width of a hair in the price from the two different contractors, so we know that Council is getting exceptional value from this contract and certainly an exceptional product, which the people of the City of Brisbane have been enjoying over the past year. Now, onto the contract for the sewer relocation in South Brisbane. Now, this contract for Diona is to undertake the relocation of the sewer, gravity and rising mains at Grey Street in South Brisbane to facilitate future upgrades to busway infrastructure in the Cultural Centre precinct in preparation for Brisbane Metro.
These works will also provide important connecting infrastructure to the new sewer pump station, which will be located within Alexander Smith Place Park. Now, these works, which started yesterday, will begin at the gravity main launch pit closest to the Queensland Museum. This goes all the way back to June 2018, when Council approved a significant contracting plan (SCP) for the Brisbane Metro project early works, inner city infrastructure and the Metro vehicles. So SCP included a tender for the relocation of the sewer gravity and rising mains. It's currently serviced by 110-litres-per-second capacity QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities) pump station, which is located at 125 Grey Street.
That will be replaced by the construction of a new 550-litre-per-second capacity pump station in Alexander Smith Place Park, which is right next to the Queensland Council of Unions building. I can assure you, that is purely a coincidence. We didn't choose to put it there. That was QUU that advised that will be the best location within South Brisbane, which is a highly-constrained site, to put this future station. Now, Council and Queensland Urban Utilities, as they're known, entered into a funding agreement to undertake the relocation of the sewer infrastructure in South Brisbane. Under the agreement, Council will fund 80% of the costs of the relocation work with Urban Utilities funding the remaining 20%.
Now, the contract is divided into two separable portions, so the separable portion 1 is the gravity main installation and a segment of the sewer rising main. Then the separation portion 2 is the shared electrical conduit and a segment of the sewer rising main in the Queensland Museum grounds. As has been very well documented and repeated ad nauseum in this place, Council is still waiting on a number of approvals from the State Government for Brisbane Metro and this second portion is contingent upon Council being formally provided with construction access by Arts Queensland.
The tender went to market and there were two submissions received. They were assessed by Council officers and after that assessment, Diona was chosen based on their track record and delivery of completed projects just like this one, as well as demonstrated experience and the knowledge of working with public utility authorities, including being a current approved contractor for State Government and Energex, which is really important in this constrained environment. Diona have a workforce of approximately 100 and their operations are based, again, in Murarrie. Thanks very much, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers? I see no hands.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR?
Okay. I will now put the resolutions—I will now put the resolution.
Clauses A and B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A and B of the report of the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 3 - Councillors Peter CUMMING, Charles STRUNK and Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 4 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Chair: Thank you. Now, on item—
Councillor COOK: Sorry, Mr Chair.
Chair: Yes, Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: You can hear me. Sorry. You're all frozen on my screen. I actually couldn't see the vote at all. Everyone is still frozen voting, half—half of the room have their hands up and half have them down.
Chair: I apologise for that. That was not what I saw. Did anyone else have that issue?
Councillor COOK: They're still frozen on my screen, Mr Chair. I—it might be my connection. I don't know what's going on there.
Chair: I think that happens—it looks all right. I might just carry on. If you can hear us, we might just carry on—
Councillor COOK: Thank you.
Chair: Item—now—
Councillor JOHNSTON: A point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, if Councillor COOK's screen is frozen, could we just confirm that at least her vote has been recorded in the way that she wanted, so she's not missing out?
Chair: Yes, that's understandable. Councillor COOK, I had you recorded as an abstention; is that correct?
Councillor COOK: That's correct. Thank you.
Chair: Councillors, now to item C.
Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2020
109/695/586/2-005
9/2020-21
1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
3. Sections 238 and 239 of City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) provide that Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.
4. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.
5. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; and (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).
6. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTES THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2020, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
|Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for May 2020 |
|Contract number/contract purpose/successful |Nature of |Unsuccessful tenderers/VFM achieved |Comparative tender |Delegate/ |
|tenderer/comparative tender/price value for money |arrangement/ | |price/s |approval |
|(VFM) index achieved |estimate maximum | | |date/start |
| |expenditure | | |date/term |
|BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE |
|1. Contract Nos. 510227, 510228 and 531805 |Corporate |Contract extension is exempt from tendering under |Not applicable |Delegate |
| |Procurement |Exemption 9 of Schedule A of Council’s SP103 |(N/A) |CPO |
|PROVISION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDWARE, PROVISION OF |Arrangements (CPAs) |Procurement Policy and Plan 2019-20, which allows | |Approved |
|TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPONENTS AND SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF|(Panel and Preferred|for extension of contracts while Council is at | |28.05.2020 |
|STAINLESS-STEEL LIGHT POLES AND FOOTINGS |Supplier |market. | |Start |
| |Arrangements) | | |01.06.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
|510227 – Traffic Signal Hardware (Panel Arrangement)|$262,254 | | |Four months |
| | | | | |
|Aldridge Traffic Systems Pty Ltd* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Braums Pty Ltd* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|510228 – Traffic Signal Components (Panel | | | | |
|Arrangement) |$378,281 | | | |
| | | | | |
|GM Poles Pty Ltd* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Tri Underground Australia Pty Ltd* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|531805 – Stainless-Steel Light Poles and Footings | | | | |
|(Preferred Supplier Arrangement) |$204,000 | | | |
| | | | | |
|GM Poles Pty Ltd* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|*VFM not applicable – extension of existing | | | | |
|arrangements. | | | | |
|2. Contract No. 511085 |Schedule of rates |Pensar Civil Pty Ltd |$16,029,357 |Delegate |
| | |Achieved VFM of 37.7 | |CEO |
|SEWER RELOCATION AND ANCILLARY WORKS AT GREY STREET,|$10,870,000 | | |Approved |
|SOUTH BRISBANE | | | |25.05.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Diona Pty Ltd – $10,870,000 | | | |16.06.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 66.4 | | | |Term |
| | | | |39 weeks |
|3. Contract No. 520642 |Lump sum |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|UPGRADES TO GRINSTEAD AND CORBETT STREET PARKS, |$630,083 |The Landscape Construction Company Pty Ltd |$636,716 |Approved |
|ALDERLEY, AND COLMSLIE BEACH RESERVE, MURARRIE STAGE| |Achieved VFM of 127.90 | |27.05.2020 |
|1 | | | |Start |
| | |Landscape Solutions (Qld) Pty Ltd |$646,221 |05.06.2020 |
|Naturform Pty Ltd – $630,083 | |Achieved VFM of 126.41 | |Term |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 129.55 | | | |16 weeks |
| | |Offer not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Jungle Buster Group Pty Ltd* |N/A | |
| | | | | |
| | |*VFM not applicable as tenderer did not meet minimum| | |
| | |quality requirements. | | |
|4. Contract No. 531994 |Schedule of rates |Silverstrand Developments Pty Ltd |$2,529,803* |Delegate |
| | |Achieved VFM of 32.4 | |CEO |
|BUS STOP ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2019-20 –|$2,476,824 | | |Approved |
|CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE 24 | |Abergeldie Contractors Pty Limited |$2,570,635* |18.05.2020 |
| | |Achieved VFM of 30.3 | |Start |
|Ertech (Queensland) Pty Ltd – $2,509,824* | | | |29.05.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 35.9 | |Pentacon Pty Ltd |$2,381,097* |Term |
| | |Achieved VFM of 27.3 | |24 weeks |
|*Price normalised for possible delay costs claimable| | | | |
|by the contractor and additional supervision | |MMS Group Pty Ltd |$2,402,756* | |
|required by Council. | |Achieved VFM of 23.7 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Naric Pty Ltd |$3,490,350* | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 20.3 | | |
|5. Contract No. 532119 |Lump sum |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|PIPE RELINING AT MILSOM STREET, NORMAN PARK |$304,000 |Interflow Pty Ltd |$381,353 |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 19.19 | |21.05.2020 |
|Pipe Lining Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Pipelining | | | |Start |
|Trust – $304,000 | |Insituform Pacific Pty Ltd |$442,134 |25.05.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 24.34 | |Achieved VFM of 15.30 | |Term |
| | | | |Four weeks |
| | |Offers not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Aaro Group Pty Ltd |$722,780 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 9.34 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Revolution Pipe Relining Pty Ltd |$1,112,600 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 4.54 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Nuflow Technologies* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |*VFM and comparative price not applicable as | | |
| | |tenderer did not meet minimum quality requirements. | | |
|6. Contract No. 532383 |Lump sum |Park Forge Pty Ltd as trustee for Park Forge Trust |$906,052 |Delegate |
| | |Achieved VFM of 88.3 | |CPO |
|VIEWS OF BRISBANE – LOOKOUT UPGRADES |$544,522 | | |Approved |
| | |The trustee for the Wilson Family Trust trading as | |27.05.2020 |
|Naturform Pty Ltd – $544,522 | |Trailworx |$946,474 |Start |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 131.31 | |Achieved VFM of 69.20 | |18.06.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
| | | | |12 weeks |
|7. Contract No. 532336 |Lump sum and |Shortlisted offer not recommended | |Delegate |
| |schedule of rates | | |CEO |
|STORY BRIDGE SPANS 1-3 TEMPORARY ACCESS AND | |Benchmark Scaffolding & Edge Protection Pty Ltd |$2,212,658 |Approved |
|ENCAPSULATION SYSTEM |$1,821,744 |trading as Benchmark Scaffolding | |12.05.2020 |
| | |Achieved VFM of 3.81 | |Start |
|X-Cel Construction Services Pty Ltd – $1,821,744 | | | |20.05.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 4.21 | |Offers not recommended | |Term |
| | | | |12 months |
| | |S&D O’Brien Pty Ltd as trustee for the O’Brien Unit |$1,953,166 | |
| | |Trust trading as Cogent Scaffolding | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 3.16 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Central Scaffolding & Rigging Services Pty Ltd as | | |
| | |trustee for the Central Scaffolding Trust trading as|$2,126,444 | |
| | |Central Scaffolding & Rigging Services | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 2.28 | | |
|8. Contract No. WR7157965 |Lump sum |Contract is exempt from tendering and quoting under |N/A |Delegate |
| | |Exemption 3 of Schedule A of Council’s SP103 | |CPO |
|RIVER TERRACE AND MAIN STREET INTERSECTION UPGRADE |$378,000 |Procurement Policy and Plan 2019-20, which allows | |Approved |
|PROJECT – ENERGEX RELOCATION WORKS | |for exemption from tendering when the goods, | |09.10.2019 |
| | |services or works can only be supplied by a single | |Start |
|Energex Limited – $378,000 | |supplier or a restricted group due to third-party | |20.05.2020 |
| | |ownership of a public utility plant asset. | |Term |
| | | | |Eight months |
|LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES |
|Nil | | | | |
|TRANSPORT FOR BRISBANE |
|9. Contract No. 51085-001 |Lump sum |N/A, order with Preferred Supplier under existing |N/A |Delegate |
| | |CPA. | |CEO |
|ORDER FOR CITYCAT 24 AND CITYCAT 25 UNDER CPA FOR |$7,834,000 | | |Approved |
|CITYCAT FLEET REPLACEMENT | | | |12.05.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Aus Ships Pty Ltd – $7,834,000 | | | |01.06.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
| | | | |16 months |
|CITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY |
|10. Contract No. MA-00052-2019 |Schedule of rates |Contract is exempt from tendering under Exemption 4 |N/A |Delegate |
| | |of Schedule A of Council’s SP103 Procurement Policy | |CPO |
|EVENT MANAGEMENT FOR MUSGRAVE PARK |$217,206 |and Plan 2019-20, which allows for exemption under a| |Approved |
| | |contract made with, or a purchase from a contract | |18.12.2019 |
|City Parklands Services – $217,206 | |made by, another government entity, government owned| |Start |
| | |entity or Local Buy. | |05.05.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
| | | | |12 months |
|CITY GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION |
|11. Contract No. 510812-001 |Lump sum |N/A, insurance contracts are negotiated on Council’s|N/A |Delegate |
| | |behalf by its insurance broker, Marsh Pty Ltd. | |CEO |
|RENEWAL OF 2020-21 CORPORATE INSURANCE PROGRAM |[Commercial-in-Confi| | |Approved |
| |dence] | | |05.05.2020 |
|Commercial Insurances (31 May 2020 – 31 May 2021) | | | |Start |
| | | | |31.05.2020 |
|Industrial Special Risks (property) plus costs for | | | |Term |
|terrorism, fire service levy and stamp duty | | | |One year |
|AIG Insurance Limited (lead insurer) | | | | |
|HDI Global (co-insurer) | | | | |
|AXA Corporate Solutions (co-insurer) | | | | |
|Zurich Australian Insurance Limited (co-insurer) | | | | |
|AAI Limited trading as Vero Insurance (co-insurer) | | | | |
|Chubb (supporting co-insurer) | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Fine Arts | | | | |
|XL Insurance Company | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Umbrella Liability | | | | |
|Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance | | | | |
| | | | | |
|City of Brisbane Investment Corporation (CBIC) | | | | |
|Combined General Liability | | | | |
|Allianz Australia Insurance Limited | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Buskers and Uninsured Performers’ Liability | | | | |
|Sportscover Australia Pty Ltd | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Business Travel, Group Personal Accident (Lord Mayor| | | | |
|and Councillors, Bus Drivers and Volunteers) | | | | |
|AIG Australia Limited | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Marine Hull (Removal of Abandoned Vessels, Ferry | | | | |
|Operations and Marina Operators’ Liability – Ferry | | | | |
|Operations) | | | | |
|Allianz Marine & Transit Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd| | | | |
| | | | | |
|Marine Liability Protection and Indemnity (Ferry | | | | |
|Operations and Terminals, Recreational Pontoons) | | | | |
|The Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity | | | | |
|Association | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Workers’ Compensation Excess of Loss (30 June 2020 | | | | |
|to 30 June 2021) | | | | |
|QBE Insurance | | | | |
| | | | | |
|LGMS Membership (30 June 2020 – 30 June 2021) | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Local Government Mutual Queensland | | | | |
|ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES | | | | |
|12. Contract No. 510372-001 |CPA (Preferred |Contract is exempt from tendering under Exemption 4 |N/A |Delegate |
| |Supplier |of Schedule A of Council’s SP103 Procurement Policy | |CPO |
|SOFTWARE LICENCE FEES AND SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE |Arrangement) |and Plan 2019-20, which allows for exemption under a| |Approved |
|FOR SCATS (SYDNEY COORDINATED ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC | |contract made with, or a purchase from a contract | |06.05.2020 |
|SYSTEM) |Annual lump sum |made by, another government entity, government owned| |Start |
| | |entity or Local Buy. | |20.07.2020 |
|Roads and Maritime Services – $1,538,640 |$1,538,640 | | |Term |
| |(over the potential | | |Three years with|
| |maximum 10-year term| | |a maximum term |
| |of the CPA) | | |of 10 years. |
|13. Contract No. 520573 |CPA (Panel | | |Delegate |
| |Arrangement) | | |CEO |
|ROADSIDE LITTER COLLECTION SERVICES | | | |Approved |
| |Schedule of rates | | |12.05.2020 |
|Category 1 – Commercial Suppliers | | | |Start |
| |$3,884,000 |Category 1 – Commercial Suppliers | |01.07.2020 |
|Jampak Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jampak Trust |(over the potential | | |Term |
|trading as Retro Clean – $710,000 per annum |maximum five-year |Civforce Traffic Management Pty Ltd trading as |N/A* |Initial term of |
|Achieved VFM of 106.5 |term of the CPA) |Australasian Traffic Group* | |three years with|
| | | | |a maximum term |
| | |Roger Sabir trading as Roger North Shore Cleaning* |N/A* |of five years. |
|Category 2 – Social Enterprises | | | | |
| | |Category 2 – Social Enterprises | | |
|Access Community Enterprises Limited trading as AES | | | | |
|Building and Maintenance Solutions – | |Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd | | |
|[Commercial-in-Confidence] per kilometre | |Achieved a VFM of 17.9 |[Commercial-in-Confi| |
|Achieved VFM of 34.2 | | |dence] per kilometre| |
| | | | | |
| | |Active Refugee & Migrant Integration in Australia |N/A* | |
|Yourtown – [Commercial-in-Confidence] per kilometre | |Pty Ltd trading as ARMIA Cleaning Services* | | |
|Achieved VFM of 25.1 | | | | |
| | |Russell Wilson as trustee for the Piggy Bank Trust | | |
| | |trading as Trash Cat* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |*VFM and comparative price not applicable as | | |
| | |tenderers did not meet minimum quality requirements.| | |
| | | | | |
|14. Contract No. 560250 |CPA (Preferred |Contract entered into without seeking competitive |N/A |Delegate |
| |Supplier |tenders from industry in accordance with section 3.3| |CPO |
|TRAINING MARKETPLACE SOLUTION |Arrangement) |of Council’s SP103 Procurement Policy and Plan | |Approved |
| | |2019-20 which allows a contract to be entered into | |27.05.2020 |
|Go1 Pty Ltd – $243,000 |Schedule of rates |where it is in the public interest. | |Start |
| | | | |10.06.2020 |
| |$243,000 | | |Term |
| | | | |13 months |
ADOPTED
B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – CONSTRUCTION OF INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE
165/210/179/3721
10/2020-21
8. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
9. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 13 July 2020.
10. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.
11. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
Purpose
12. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan (SCP) for the construction of the Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade project.
Background/business case
13. Council has identified the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade as necessary to improve safety and reduce congestion. The Indooroopilly roundabout is situated at the intersection of Moggill Road and Coonan Street, Indooroopilly.
14. Moggill Road and Coonan Street are two arterial roads linking Brisbane’s outer west and south-west suburbs and the Central Business District (CBD), intersecting in a semi-controlled roundabout at Indooroopilly.
15. The intersection caters for high traffic volumes and experiences significant congestion in peak hour periods with an average of 38,000 vehicles each day to the west of Moggill Road, 47,000 vehicles each day to the east and 25,000 vehicles each day along Coonan Street. Major queues are experienced on approaches to the intersection resulting in delays for all road users.
16. The intersection has a high crash history, with 32 recorded incidents between 2013 and 2018, resulting in 10 hospitalisations and 17 requiring medical treatment.
17. The Moggill Road and Coonan Street corridors border commercial, retail and residential land areas. The intersection has limited pedestrian and active transport connectivity and accessibility.
18. The intersection provides a critical link to adjoining suburbs, the CBD and broader Brisbane for all transport modes, supporting commercial and residential development in the area.
19. The planned upgrade replaces the roundabout at the intersection of Moggill Road and Coonan Street with an overpass for Coonan Street traffic, allowing Moggill Road through traffic to travel uninterrupted. This will improve safety by removing entry and exit conflicts, increase capacity and reduce congestion at the intersection for all road users as well as improve connectivity and access for pedestrians and cyclists.
Policy and other considerations
20. Is there an existing CPA for these works?
Yes, CPA 520202 (Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure) was established for construction works. However, due to the significant value of this contract, it is proposed to go to open tender.
21. Could Council businesses provide the works?
No, Council’s Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure (BI), does not have the capacity to deliver the construction works. Council staff will be engaged in the design, land acquisition, project management, contract administration, application for planning and technical peer reviews of the project.
22. Are there policy, or other issues, that the delegate should be aware of?
No
23. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
Yes
24. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
Yes
25. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
26. The current civil construction market in South East Queensland is competitive and following the easing of COVID-19 related restrictions, it is anticipated that this tender is likely to attract multiple suppliers.
27. In view of the significant road and overpass construction, the contractor is required to be prequalified with the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) to R4/B3/F75 status. A market scan of contractors with the relevant TMR pre-qualification revealed considerable interest, with the following 15 (out of 16) expressing interest:
- Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd
- Acciona Construction Australia Pty Ltd
- Bielby Holdings Pty Ltd
- BMD Constructions Pty Limited
- Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd
- Cragcorp Pty Ltd (trading as Queensland Bridge & Civil)
- Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd
- Doval Constructions (Qld) Ltd
- Ertech (Queensland) Pty Ltd
- Ferrovial Agroman (Australia) Pty Ltd
- Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd
- Georgiou Group Pty Ltd
- JF Hull Holdings Pty Ltd
- McIlwain Civil Engineering Pty Ltd
- Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
28.
|Procurement objective: |To procure the Construction of the Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade project in a way which|
| |complies with the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of |
| |Brisbane Act 2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| | |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission. |
|Title of contract: |Construction of Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade |
|Type of procurement: |Establishing a once-off contract |
|Process to be used: |Two-stage process – publicly tendered Expression of Interest (EOI) to establish a |
| |shortlist of tenderers to participate in a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The RFP |
| |will include an early tenderer involvement (ETI). During the ETI, shortlisted suppliers |
| |will participate in interactive workshops to inform the development of the design and |
| |increase familiarity with the project and construction requirements. At the end of the ETI|
| |process, Council will finalise the design and shortlisted tenderers will provide schedule |
| |of rates pricing for construction. The ETI is a collaborative tender process in which |
| |shortlisted construction contractors have an opportunity to provide input into the design.|
| | |
| |The interactive workshops will be facilitated by an independent chair engaged from the |
| |Project Management category of CPA 510162 Infrastructure Design Consulting Services |
| |overseen by an external probity auditor engaged from QGCPO 0050-18 Consultancy Probity |
| |Auditing (Tranche 4). |
| | |
| |During the interactive RFP stage, the tenderers will be encouraged to request |
| |clarifications on risks, assumptions, and/or raise design ideas that may benefit the |
| |project as a whole. Evaluation of tenderers will include their level of participation |
| |(e.g. design ideas) in the evaluation. |
| | |
| |The EOI will target a shortlist of up to four suppliers for the RFP stage. The shortlist |
| |of respondents for the EOI stage will be approved by the Executive Manager, City Projects |
| |Office (CPO), BI, via the BI Procurement Board. |
|RFP or EOI standard to be used: |The EOI will use Council’s corporate standard. The RFP will be developed in consultation |
| |with Strategic Procurement Office (SPO), Organisational Services (OS), and include |
| |additional conditions to set out the ETI process. |
|Market engagement |The EOI will be publicly released. The RFP (including the ETI process) will be issued to |
| |the respondents shortlisted from the EOI stage. |
|How RFP or EOI is to be |EOI and RFP are to be distributed via Council’s supplier portal. |
|distributed and submitted: | |
|How tenders/proposals are to be |EOI and RFP are to be lodged via Council’s supplier portal. |
|lodged: | |
|Part offers: |Part offers may not be considered. |
|Joint offers: |Joint offers may be considered. |
|Contract standard to be used (and|AS4000 with Council’s standard amendments. |
|any amends): | |
|Term of contract: |Approximately 104 weeks for construction. |
|Insurance requirements: |- Contractor arranged public liability insurance of $75 million. |
| |- Contractor arranged motor vehicle insurance of $30 million. |
|Price basis: |Schedule of rates |
|Price adjustment: |To be established as a result of negotiations and advised in the post-market submission. |
|Liquidated damages: |$6,400 per day, subject to negotiation. |
|Security for the contract: |Security in the form of two unconditional bank guarantees each to the value of 2.5% of the|
| |estimated contract sum, subject to negotiation. |
|Defects liability period: |12 months |
|Other strategy elements: |The RFP will advise that alternative offers will be considered provided that a conforming |
| |offer is also submitted. Proponents involved in the RFP process that are unsuccessful in |
| |being awarded the project shall be eligible for a one-off payment of $25,000 as |
| |reimbursement of their cost of involvement and any intellectual property contributed |
| |during the process. |
| | |
| |Order placement for long lead-time items is to be considered at all stages and to be |
| |managed with the successful contractor at award so as not to delay access to site. Council|
| |may novate any pre-procurement items, disclosing their inclusion during the RFP process. |
|Alternative strategies |Procurement strategy workshops were undertaken in early 2020 that shortlisted three |
|considered: |delivery methods: |
| |- ETI – construct to design |
| |- Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) – design and construct |
| |- price competitive alliance. |
| | |
| |The ETI delivery method was recommended as: |
| |- it better accommodates evaluation and treatment of project risks such as significant |
| |public utility plant (PUP) works and interfaces |
| |- it allows for competitive tendering and collaborative contractor input during the |
| |detailed design period |
| |- it allows Council more control over the design and commencement of the approval process |
| |during the tender phase |
| |- design development had progressed with preliminary design 50% complete. |
| | |
| |Alliance is not recommended as the scope of the project has a high level of certainty. |
| |Design and construct is not recommended due to the complexity of PUP challenges with the |
| |project. |
Anticipated schedule
29. Pre-market (SCP) approval: 4 Aug 2020
Date of release of EOI to market: 5 Aug 2020
EOI closing date: 16 Sep 2020
Shortlist for RFP: 21 Oct 2020
ETI commences: 18 Nov 2020
ETI closes: 23 Apr 2021
Update RFP documents to incorporate design modifications: 3 May 2021
Release final RFP documents for pricing: 14 Jun 2021
RFP process closes: 16 Jul 2021
Evaluation/negotiation completion: 10 Sep 2021
Contract preparation: 5 Nov 2021
Post-market approval: 19 Nov 2021
Contract commencement: 17 Jan 2022
Budget
30. Estimated total expenditure under this contract:
[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus an estimated contingency of [Commercial-in-Confidence] ([Commercial-in-Confidence] of the contract sum).
31. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this contract?
Sufficient funding availability has been confirmed in Council’s current and forward year budgets in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
32. Anticipated procurement savings:
To be established and reported in the post-market submission.
33. Program budget line item:
Program: Program 2 – Infrastructure for Brisbane
Outcome: 2.1 – Roads and Transport Network Management
Strategy: 2.1.2 – Build the Transport Network
Service: 2.1.2.5 – Better Roads for Brisbane
Projects: Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade
34. Program budget funding availability:
|Projects |2020-21 |2021-22 |2022-23 |2023-24 |
| |($000) |($000) |($000) |($000) |
|Capital |4,668 |29,367 |44,908 |47,250 |
|Expenses |- |- |- |- |
|Revenue |3,000 |20,000 |20,500 |6,500 |
35. Breakdown of budget spent to date:
|Budget for financial year |Amount of budget for financial year |Amount of budget for financial year |
|($000) |spent or committed to date |remaining |
| |($000) |($000) |
|2020-21 |4,668 |0 |4,668 |
|2021-22 |29,367 |0 |29,367 |
|2022-23 |44,908 |0 |44,908 |
|2023-24 |47,250 |0 |47,250 |
36. Breakdown of budget and identifiable costs:
|Line item description |Budget estimate |Pre-market estimate |
| |($) |($) |
|Land acquisition |10,300,000 |10,300,000 |
|Design |2,984,000 |2,984,000 |
|Project management and contract administration |8,511,433 |8,511,433 |
|PUP |8,027,843 |8,027,843 |
|PUP contingency |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Construction contract sum |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Construction contract contingency |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|([Commercial-in-Confidence]) | | |
|Project risk |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Corporate overheads ([Commercial-in-Confidence]) |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
Procurement risk
37. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Substantial PUP on site |High |- Engage with PUP owners. |Council |
| | |- Engage with potential contractors via the proposed| |
| | |ETI process including workshop agenda items of | |
| | |constructability and innovation. | |
|Availability of tenderers due to |Medium |- Early presentation of this contract to the market |Council |
|Australian and Queensland | |compared to the timing of other economic stimulus | |
|Government economic stimulus | |packages. | |
|packages | | | |
|Substantial changes to existing |Medium |- Engage with shortlisted tenderers via the ETI |Council |
|horizontal and vertical geometry | |process, including workshop agenda items of | |
|which affect construction | |constructability and innovation. | |
|staging, traffic control, and | | | |
|access | | | |
|Community concerns on project |Medium |- Develop key messages around project benefits. |Council |
|impact | |- Keep the community informed about changing | |
| | |conditions before and during construction. | |
| | |- Provide project email and 1800 number to contact | |
| | |the project team. | |
| | |- Offer meetings where required. | |
| | |- Ensure information is available via Council’s | |
| | |website and Contact Centre. | |
| | |- Register all feedback and pass onto the project | |
| | |team for review and action. | |
|Design development and |Medium |- Completion of the detail design in conjunction |Council |
|investigations | |with the ETI process. | |
| | |- Ongoing consultation with internal and external | |
| | |stakeholders to inform future corridor demand and | |
| | |Translink requirements. | |
| | |- Geotechnical investigations to inform both | |
| | |foundation design and provisional quantities. | |
| | |- Completion of corridor drainage investigations. | |
| | |- Cycle connectivity to be developed. | |
| | |- Finalising the interface to impacted adjacent | |
| | |properties. | |
|Competitiveness of pricing |Low |- It is anticipated that up to four suppliers will |Council |
| | |price the work at the end of the RFP stage. | |
38. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
No
Tender evaluation
39. Evaluation criteria:
(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:
- TMR’s R4/B3/F75 prequalification
- acceptance of Council’s construction contract standard, AS4000 (with Council’s standard amendments)
- Australian Government Building and Construction WH&S Accreditation.
(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:
EOI stage:
|Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting (%) |
|Local benefit |30 |
|Proposed team for the interactive RFP stage |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Company capacity and track record of constructing similar |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|infrastructure including reference checking | |
|Understanding of key construction risks and opportunities for this |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|project including construction staging | |
|Total: |100 |
RFP stage:
|Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting (%) |
|Local benefit |30 |
|Project specific construction methodologies and management plans: |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|detailed construction program, construction methodology including | |
|project staging plans, sequencing supporting project staging, | |
|operational traffic management supporting staging plans, and | |
|identification of key risks | |
|Key personnel experience and availability including percentage of |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|time on site | |
|Demonstrated previous company track record, capacity to deliver and |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|references | |
|Design and innovation initiatives |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |100 |
(c) Price model:
Normalised tender price.
40. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
If required during the EOI stage, shortlisting will be based on the non-price weighted scores. If required during the RFP stage, shortlisting will be based on the value for money (VFM) scores. At any time during the evaluation, a submission may be excluded from further evaluation or a shortlist where:
- a score against any criterion (regardless of the weighting) is so low that the proposal is considered to be high risk or disadvantageous for Council
- the submission contains non-compliances with the specification or draft contract that the evaluation team considers to be unacceptable or disadvantageous for Council
- the submission/tenderer is considered to be high risk or disadvantageous for Council, regardless of the criteria stated in the tender documents (requires concurrence from Procurement Governance, SPO, OS, prior to use).
A submission(s) may be included on any shortlist where the evaluation team considers that, despite scoring, there are strong, documented commercial reasons for further considering the submission.
(b) VFM method:
Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is the non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
41. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
42. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE PROJECT.
ADOPTED
C LEASE OF COUNCIL LAND TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
112/445/439/200
11/2020-21
43. The Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the information below.
44. In accordance with section 217 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation), Council cannot enter into a valuable non-current asset contract (relevantly, a lease in respect of land or contract for the disposal of land) unless it first:
(a) invites written tenders for the contract; or
(b) offers the valuable non-current asset for sale by auction.
45. Section 226(1) of the Regulation provides a number of exceptions that Council may apply to the disposal of an interest in land other than by way of tender or auction, including, but not limited to, land that is to be leased to a government agency or a community organisation.
46. Council currently leases properties to the community organisations listed in Attachment B (submitted on file) for community, sport, recreation and cultural purposes.
47. To ensure the continued effective management of Council’s community, sport, recreation and cultural facilities, it is proposed that Council resolve to apply the exception provided by section 226(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulation to the properties identified in Attachment B (submitted on file).
48. Local Councillors have been informed of Council’s intention to apply the exception and continue lease negotiations with the relevant organisations within their ward.
49. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
50. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PERMIT COUNCIL TO DISPOSE OF AN INTEREST IN LAND BY LEASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 226(1) OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE REGULATION 2012
As:
(i) Council is the owner of the land (freehold), or the trustee of the land, as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file), which is used, or is proposed to be used, for community, sport, recreation and cultural purposes
(ii) Council proposes to renew existing leases in respect of land which is used, or is proposed to be used, for community, sport, recreation and cultural purposes
(iii) section 226(2) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that Council decide by resolution that exceptions set out in section 226(1) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 may apply before disposing of a valuable non-current asset other than by way of tender or auction,
then Council:
(i) resolves that the exception set out in section 226(1)(b)(ii) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 applies to the disposal of the properties by way of lease renewal, as described in Attachment B (submitted on file)
(ii) determines that existing delegations and their limits in respect of community leases as determined by Council resolutions 407/2001-02 and 299/2016-17 continue to apply.
ADOPTED
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. Item A relates to the ongoing arrangements that we have in relation to the financing and ownership of our transport assets, including buses, ferries, CityCats and it's been a longstanding practice of Council that we operate a sale and leaseback arrangement, which helps free up capital for other important purposes in our budget. So this is about continuing on those arrangements and maximising the benefits to Council and the ratepayers of Brisbane by entering into those arrangements.
As you know, we have more than 1,200 buses in the fleet, a fleet of 22 CityCats, nine monohull ferries and we're also about to embark on next year receipt of the first pilot Metro vehicle, to be followed after that by 59 more of those vehicles. So looking at the best way to manage the purchase and ownership of those is part of this submission. As I said, it's the continuation of ongoing arrangements with the ownership of public transport fleets in Brisbane. Item B relates to the Stores Board submission for outdoor activity equipment and associated services. Obviously, upgrades to local parks and sporting facilities are a critical and much-needed part of what we do.
Having appropriate, competitive arrangements in place with suppliers is really important, because we have a lot of work to do across the city. A large number of park upgrades and park improvements happening and it's been great to see some of the improvements that have opened up just recently, whether it's a ninja warrior course, Councillor MACKAY, in Guyatt Park, or whether it's the fantastic upgrades that we saw Councillor Fiona HAMMOND deliver in her area, with a new scooter track and a magic forest. There's some really exciting upgrades happening and having appropriate supplier arrangements in place is important.
I can say that as part of this procurement activity, we're giving a weighting of 30% to local benefits, which is the maximum weighting under our local buy policy. So we've dialled up the procurement process to really provide those maximum local benefits and we'll be looking at the local nature of those businesses and making sure that there are local benefits. So it may be the case, as we've seen in the past, that a local company employing local people and local workers obtains their equipment from a range of different suppliers.
Some of that equipment might be locally sourced here and some might be the best equipment from overseas as well, so we have a range of different arrangements in place, but the key is making sure that there are local benefits for this contract. We've set the procurement process up to make sure that happens. Item C is about the contracting plan for bitumen sealing and pavement rejuvenation services and obviously we're investing heavily—we have invested heavily until now and we will continue to do that in road maintenance, road resurfacing and repairs and this is about making sure that we can deliver the best-possible value for ratepayers while maintaining our large asset base of roads across the city.
We also have another, at item D, Stores Board submission relating to static signs and traffic-control devices. So it's basic stuff, but it is important and, once again, the information has been provided for Councillors to see. Item E, which Councillor MURPHY alluded to before, a very exciting submission relating to the naming of CityCat number 23, the second double-decker CityCat.
I'm pleased to confirm that we will be naming that CityCat after Neville Bonner AO, the first Indigenous senator or the first Indigenous Australian to sit in the Federal Parliament and an elder of the Jagera people as well and someone that is known well to all of us and someone that was previously acknowledged with a building where the current Star Casino and Resort is being built and someone who will be acknowledged going forward with both a bridge and now a CityCat. That is appropriate. There is precedent for a number of things to be named after prominent people.
The Clem Jones Tunnel and the Clem Jones Promenade at South Bank here an example of where a prominent person has more than one thing named in their honour. Neville Bonner is certainly one of those people that deserves this acknowledgement. The river is such an important part of Brisbane and to have both a bridge and now a double-decker CityCat named in his honour is not only a tribute to what Neville Bonner achieved, but also an important acknowledgement of our Indigenous community, Indigenous elders and their achievements, so that people riding in this CityCat up the river will hopefully learn a little bit more about the history of Neville Bonner and his contribution to our city, our State and our nation.
So this is something I'm very proud to support. I did want to also flag another matter, which relates to the naming of CityCats going forward. Now, we have traditionally named our CityCats with Indigenous names and there's, as we know, 22 of them on the water at the moment; all except one has an Indigenous name and that's the Spirit of Brisbane. You will recall that that vessel was named in honour of the spirit of Brisbane residents that came out of the 2011 flood and I think that's an appropriate acknowledgement, but going forward I can tell you that our process will be with the 24th CityCat—and these CityCats will also start to replace the older CityCats on the river.
So the earlier generations of CityCats will get replaced by new double-decker CityCats and I'm confirming today that when an older CityCat is taken off the water, we will make sure that the name of that vessel lives on in a new CityCat. So that will continue those names and that way, rather than retiring a vessel and the name never to be heard of again, we're going to bring back that name with the new vessel. So the Neville Bonner will be CityCat number 23, but then as we go forward, future CityCats will bear the name of the CityCat that they are replacing in the river.
So I just wanted to confirm that approach going forward. So we'll keep those fantastic Indigenous names on the water. They will live on. Then there's precedent for this sort of thing. You'll be aware the Royal Australian Navy, they have had now three HMAS Brisbanes. There was Brisbane I, Brisbane II and Brisbane III and so we will take on that naval tradition of re-lifing a name for a new vessel, to keep it current and to make sure it lives on in our city. So, Mr Chair, that's all from me.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Seriatim - Clause A
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, SALE AND LEASE BACK FACILITY FOR COUNCIL’S TRANSPORT ASSETS, be taken seriatim for |
|voting purposes. |
Councillor CASSIDY: Again, Chair, I did the right thing. Went up to level 23 of Brisbane Square to check out what was on file for these items before us and the E&C report for information purposes. We've—again, there was nothing on file in addition to what is in the E&C report or provided in the scanned details of the attachments. I've called for these files well ahead of time last week, but they have not been provided to me in time for today's meeting. Although we're not making the decision on these, in the recess, E&C has made the decision on behalf of Council.
So I don't really think it's good enough that we're not able to access appropriate information as Councillors to be able to hold this administration to account and don't have appropriate information before we discuss and vote on these items today. Now, I'll be talking through all of these clauses, Chair. Starting in clause A, the sale and leaseback facility for Council's transport assets. This is obviously, as the LORD MAYOR said, a new rental facility agreement for Council's bus fleet, an arrangement where our buses that the State Government pays for and Council builds are sold off to a third party and then Council pays to lease those assets back by using ratepayers' funds.
The previous arrangement was with Westpac Bank, which expired—which has already expired on 30 June 2020. There's a bit of a theme around things in this report that have already expired, and this administration playing a serious amount of catchup to try and get things back on track, as it were. The report proposes a panel arrangement to provide a new sale and leaseback facility for these Council assets. What is, I suppose, astounding in this report, is that the LORD MAYOR and the LNP Civic Cabinet are giving themselves approval to sell off the Brisbane Metro bendy buses before we've even seen one, Chair.
We don't even know that these things will make it onto the road. The demo model for the bendy bus hasn't hit the ground yet here in Brisbane. We don't know if they will be approved to operate on Queensland roads. We don't know if they're going to be DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant. We know the LNP has a shocking track record when it comes to providing public transport vehicles that are DDA compliant when they've purchased them from overseas instead of building them locally. So it's quite amazing that before a single bendy bus has hit the road here in Brisbane, the LNP have already sold off every single one of those and will be renting them back for a long, long period of time.
Clauses B, C and D are various Stores Board submissions and they're items that generally fund some of the most fundamental and basic services that Council can provide to the community, building playgrounds, managing local roads, resurfacing streets and things like that. We'll be supporting this item, Chair, which puts in place a panel of suppliers to do the work on our roads and in our parks, but we're certainly concerned about the delay in putting the preferred supplier panel in place for outdoor activity equipment. So basically providing playground equipment, water play, outdoor gym equipment, dog agility and more of those basic park amenities. So according to the report that is before us today, the existing arrangement wrapped up on 31 March 2020 and the new one won't be in place until Christmas time now.
So instead of focusing on the basics, like this Administration should have been doing and getting these panel arrangements in place well ahead of time of them expiring, the LORD MAYOR and the LNP administration was more focused at the time on spending $6.5 million of Brisbane ratepayers' money to promote themselves in the leadup to the last election, Chair.
While they were using—while the LNP were using ratepayers' money to run a self-promotional marketing campaign, this arrangement lapsed. By letting this slip and what this means is the LNP administration not only fundamentally took their eye off the ball when it comes to basic administration of the city, and some of the most basic things like park upgrades, letting the contract lapse and the panel arrangement lapse is likely to cost Council, and in turn ratepayers, a significant amount of money, as time on projects is delayed while individual tenders have to be sought while this panel arrangement is not in place.
Each playground upgrade, each dog park enhancement, each outdoor fitness equipment faces being delayed now. All the ones that are being installed now and the ones that'll be installed over this financial year, will be delayed and cost more due to the sheer incompetence of this Administration, Chair.
Moving on to clause E, the naming of CityCat 23, this is a very important item before us today. For the last quarter of a century our iconic CityCats, introduced by the Soorley Labor administration, have graced our river.
From their inception, these CityCats have recognised the original place names for areas along the Brisbane River; places like Barrambin or Bowen Hills as we know it today, or Meeandah, the land below Hamilton, or Nar-dha, Nudgee, the place of black ducks.
This was an important partnership between Aboriginal people here in Brisbane that said we cared about you and your history and culture and our shared history and culture as a city.
2020 has brought into sharp relief the need to do better in repairing and building the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. I worry that what we have before us will not contribute to that.
The consultation with traditional custodian groups appears so paper-thin it almost doesn't exist. You cannot send a letter to five people, and when you get no response, pat yourself on the back and say that was a job well done.
I asked a number of questions of Connected Communities and subsequently Transport for Brisbane that have gone unanswered. What names were proposed? How were they arrived at? Was Neville Bonner the only name considered? His contribution was significant. He has a Federal electorate and now a bridge named after him, and as the LORD MAYOR said previously, a building named after him as well. But what other significant Aboriginal people did we consider honouring if we're deviating from place names?
Robbie Williams, for instance, the first Aboriginal Councillor to serve in this place and who died in office while serving his community, or someone like Dundalli whose story of resistance against repression was remarkable here in Brisbane. He was hanged in 1834 in Post Office Square. Well, as history goes, Chair, that atrocity didn't quite go to plan, with the hangman effectively strangling him to death in front of a horrified crowd.
The seminal book, Brisbane Blacks, which was written by Michael Aird and recounts many of the stories that make up Brisbane's Aboriginal history and our shared past—this book was supported by Brisbane City Council and in the LORD MAYOR's forward, Chair, Jim Soorley wrote: “the story of Aboriginal people in South East Queensland is a giant tale; begins with Aboriginal custodianship of this land, extending back to the Dreamtime and continues through to the period of European settlement with its brutal and bloody episodes of occupation.
It spans the era of oppressive government control of Aboriginal people and the policies that brought about the Stolen Generation. It encompasses the events, attitudes, occurrences that have led to the entrenched disadvantage that many Aboriginal people still face today, but mostly importantly, it is also a tale of survival; a tale of achievement against the odds, and a tale of a patient, generous, creative, big-hearted and courageous people who have given so much to the land and people around them.”
These words are as true and important today as they were in 2001, Chair. We owe it to Brisbane's Aboriginal people to properly consider and consult when we make these decisions. Simply sending a letter to five people, without any follow-up whatsoever, is unacceptable. The lack of meaningful information here for Councillors about this naming process is unacceptable.
We will support the CityCat name, but put on record our strong displeasure at the process Council has undertaken, and renew our calls for Council to start playing a significant role in leading the conversation with the community about our dark past and building a more resilient future, Chair.
Finally, I'll talk on clause F, the Stores Board submission for Brisbane's COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus plan. So Council is seeking approval for a significant contracting plan for the Brisbane COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus program. This program is set to deliver—supposed to deliver expedited projects for Brisbane, funded by a range of grants. Grants that come from the State and Federal Governments.
Again, I ventured up to level 23, Chair, to view the files and reports and there's nothing on file for Councillors, but what is in the report before us today tells us I think all we need to know about this administration's plan for a COVID-19 response. This entire plan is dependent on acquiring funds from the Federal and Queensland Governments. There is not one single cent of Council money allocated. This—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY your time has expired.
12/2020-21
At that point, Councillor Jared CASSIDY was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Kara COOK, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS.
Chair: Those against say no and raise your hand. The ayes have it.
Please continue.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you. I thank the Chamber for your overwhelming endorsement of an extra couple of minutes for me.
So, Chair, this entire plan is dependent on acquiring funds from other levels of government. Not one single cent of Council money is being put on the table in a so-called COVID-19 Infrastructure Stimulus program.
The Administration's own report, which is before us today in this E&C report, highlights that there is a significant risk that Council won't actually secure any funding to begin with, and some projects may not meet the criteria needed to get funding.
So when you take the LNP's track record of delaying projects, it is highly likely that they won't meet the timeframe criteria. There is a half-hearted plan which 100% of the projects rely on all other levels of government to even get off the ground.
There is no outline of the key projects it expects to be delivering through this stimulus program. We believe there should be much more detail and thought put into such an important plan, and this is the kind of work that this Administration should have been spending a lot more time on, delivering a genuine COVID-19 response instead of a half-hearted response, whether it was through the budget of half-measures, and now through an economic stimulus plan of somebody else's measures, Chair.
We will support this item going forward but believe that a Council the size of—a budget of $3.2 billion, you'd think the LNP could do a little better to help Brisbane recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we work our way through the health crisis, we will soon hit the economic crisis. If we think businesses and community groups are hurting now, we haven't seen anything yet.
I really genuinely worry, Chair, that this economic stimulus program won't go anywhere near supporting the community that we need to be.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Chair. I rise to—well I don't actually rise, I'm sitting, but I'm speaking on items B, C and D on the Stores Board submissions.
As the LORD MAYOR has mentioned, our residents expect Brisbane's parks and greenspaces to be of the highest standard, and to deliver these high-quality outcomes, Council is required to procure equipment and services from the market. The new CPA will be in the form of power agents with separate categories for different equipment and services.
Once again, an examination of the market indicates several locally-based suppliers which is a positive sign, and as the LORD MAYOR has indicated, contract commencement is anticipated in December this year.
With item C, as the LORD MAYOR indicated, Council is committed to delivering its $240 million road resurfacing program over the next four years in a cost-effective manner. Bitumen sealing involves priming and spray sealing to waterproof and protect the road subbase from water ingress. Road pavement rejuvenation uses a thin surface treatment and crack sealing to extend the life of road pavements, reducing the frequency of more expensive road surfacing and reducing whole-of-life cost.
So the current corporate procurement arrangement for bitumen sealing is due to expire on 28 November, and the CPA for pavement rejuvenation services has already been expired in March of this year. That was allowed to expire as requirements for pavement rejuvenation services were not expected until late 2020.
It's pleasing to see that market research suggests that there are several suppliers in South East Queensland, and as indicated by the LORD MAYOR, the new CPA will provide more value to Brisbane ratepayers and will take the form of a panel. All preferred supplier arrangements based on market participation and assessment.
Item D, which is the significant contract plan for static signs and traffic control devices, as indicated, Council's existing corporate procurement arrangement is due to expire in November this year, and while our science workshop does have some production capacity, services from the market are required and the new CPA will take the form of a panel arrangement. It's again pleasing to see market research indicate the existence of a number of local suppliers. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just briefly on all of the items here today in this E&C information report, the problem with what is happening today is that E&C, while in recess, have made a number of decisions that cannot be changed by a decision of full Council. That relates to a number of very significant issues which affect the operation of how Council runs, and that includes several new significant contracting plans which relate to a lot of operational matters, but also the COVID-19 Economic Stimulus program.
The problem with this is both the process today—does not allow for the transparent oversight of the matters before Council. Councillors are not entitled to any information on the files. When you check on information reports the only thing on the files up at the CEO's office is actually the report itself. So there is absolutely no information here. We have no ability to review or change the matters before us today. This is not new; this is an ongoing problem.
That's compounded, however, by the fact that now the way these financial projects are being run and the development of significant contracting plans. Basically there's no oversight by full Council. This is essentially executive decision-making.
So the contracting panel for playgrounds—no say or oversight by Council, the representative body; bitumen sealing and road rejuvenation services—no oversight by the elected body; signs, traffic control devices—no oversight by the elected body. Importantly, the COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus program—no oversight by the elected body. That is because once the significant contracting plans have been done, they do not come back to full Council for any kind of formal decision or sign-off.
So essentially E&C in secret made the decision. They've delegated away the power of the elected representative—that's the 26 of us—to oversight, review, discuss, change any of the operational decisions of this Council. We have no say, as elected representatives, in the decision-making of this Council.
I have said this as long as I have been here, and particularly since I've been an independent: the delegation of powers away from elected representatives is absolutely undermining the integrity and governance and transparency of the operations of this Council.
We are elected to represent the people of Brisbane and to make decisions about how this Council operates, to oversight the decision-making and the delivery of projects by Council officers and to ensure that the running of the Council is fair, offers value for money and is being done and managed in a constructive and positive way. That is simply not possible when you are given a document with no information available about it, that you're not allowed to change and that will never come back to Council for decision.
I said this last year and it is increasingly a problem under this Administration: this Council is run as a corporation; it is not run as a community. The city has stopped being a personality. The city is simply a financial vehicle through which the executive of Council, supported fully by this E&C, LNP-led Administration, is delegating decision-making through executive structures and away from the democratic oversight of this Council Chamber.
I do not support what this Council is doing. It is increasingly problematic, it is unrepresentative, and it is leading to a lack of transparency and oversight of the decision-making that is happening within Council.
I just want to say something very specifically on the COVID-19 Economic Stimulus program. This one's even worse. Obviously COVID-19 is a really significant issue for the city at the moment. It was a very big focus of the LORD MAYOR's budget. This is not even a blank cheque. This is like signing a chequebook, handing it over to somebody and saying, when you're ready you just sign away whatever you want. That's problematic.
I certainly hear and appreciate what Councillor CASSIDY has said—that there's a bit of slight-of-hand here with the fact that the State and Federal Governments are going to have to put money in to make this work—but the big problem is again, there is no requirement for these projects to come to Council. So we're ticking off on something that has no details whatsoever, that has no Council money attached to it, that will never come back to Council, that we don't know, as the elected representatives, will actually deliver for money for our city, will actually meet the COVID-19 needs of our city and that is problematic.
We were elected to ensure that there is value for money in the way that ratepayers spend their funds, to ensure that projects will deliver the best results for the people of Brisbane, and again, by making decisions in secret, the LNP E&C have reduced the level of scrutiny over something that is so important for our city, particularly at this time.
I do not support what this Administration is doing. The corporatisation of Brisbane City Council is taking the city in the wrong direction. While strong governance is important, transparency is equally important, and that is where the Administration has completely lost its way; making decisions in secret and delegating them back to the officers where there is no scrutiny by the elected representatives. That is wrong and I don't support it.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Yes, thanks very much, Chair. I want to speak today to clause E which is the naming of the Neville Bonner CityCat. I'd like to acknowledge, before I speak any further, that I'm speaking about a member of our community who was a proud Jagera Elder, and I'd like to acknowledge the Jagera people and his descendants.
Like the LORD MAYOR, I'm very, very proud to be announcing that Council will honour former senator, Mr Neville Bonner AO, through the naming of the next double-decker CityCat, CityCat 23, to go into service after him.
As the LORD MAYOR highlighted, Mr Bonner was the first Indigenous Australian to sit in the Australian Parliament and then the first Indigenous Australian to be elected to Parliament in his own right. This happened in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1980.
He was an Elder of the Jagera people and next year will be the 50th anniversary of when the former senator was the first Indigenous Australian to sit in the Parliament. So I think the timing couldn't be better in terms of being able to name this CityCat after him, particularly given the demise of the Neville Bonner Administration Building as part of The Star development.
So we will actually have this CityCat in service and have Neville Bonner back on the river before the bridge, which is being named after him, will be completed. So I think that's fantastic for Council to be able to beat the State Government to the punch there.
Council officers contacted the Bonner family in early July to seek their in-principle agreement to the naming, which they provided to Council, both in-principle and then later formally.
I would like to acknowledge and to thank Ms Melissa Bonner and the Bonner family for their support for this naming. CityCat 23 is, as we heard earlier, the next generation CityCat which will enter service and it will have a similar design to its sister ship, Yoogera, which began passenger services in November last year, along with a sweep of minor refinements to enhance its performance on the water.
Yoogera means Breakfast Creek at the mouth and it has been enormously popular with patronage when it first entered on 26 November 2019 to 19 July this year, topping over 56,000 passengers.
Our newest CityCat is currently undergoing final testing now out in Moreton Bay, and it's on track to welcome its first passengers as early as next month. So that's really, really exciting news for our city.
The Bonner family will be invited to christen the CityCat and I'd like to again acknowledge the Bonner family for accepting our invitation to honour Neville Bonner and his achievements as an advocate for his people, his State and country, as well as next year being 50 years since he was the first Indigenous Australian to sit in our parliament.
Chair, just on some of the discussion, I suppose some of the debate, that Councillor CASSIDY offered before in respect of the naming, I just want to confirm what the LORD MAYOR said prior: all CityCats have an Aboriginal name, except for Spirit of Brisbane, with the names generally being interpretations of places along the Brisbane River.
These names are selected from a compilation prepared in 2005 by Kate Harbison who is the Wynnum librarian specialising in Brisbane's history. CityCat 22's name, Yoogera, was chosen from this same list.
To help identify suitable names for future CityCats, Transport for Brisbane worked with Connected Communities branch who sent a letter on 3 April 2020 to five traditional custodian representatives seeking their assistance and requesting that they confirm their participation in the proposed CityCat naming project by 17 April 2020. Then advise three names that reflect the Aboriginal people and cultural heritage by Friday 1 May 2020.
No responses were received by 17 April, and so reminders were sent to each group on 24 April. Then, once again, no responses were received by 1 May. So for Councillor CASSIDY to say there was no follow-up whatsoever is simply false. It is simply false.
We will always stand by our naming of these assets and the process that we undertake to name these assets, in partnership with the community where we can, and in this case, we had to make a very quick decision. The LORD MAYOR's confirmed that the naming of the future CityCats will be the names of the ones that are retired and taken out of service.
We will always stand by our process for naming these important vessels and assets as part of our city. Let's not forget the Labor Party have presided over some absolutely farcical namings in the past. We have the Lady Cilento Hospital, the Jim Soorley Bikeway, the Henry Palaszczuk Bridge, the Terry Mackenroth grandstand. So I don't think it's appropriate for us to take lectures from the Labor Party when it comes to naming assets, given their absolutely appalling track record when it comes to that at other levels of government.
So I would just like to say once again how proud I am to be part of naming this CityCat after Neville Bonner; recognising the absolutely extraordinary contribution that he has made to the Parliament of Australia as an Indigenous senator, and that contribution will forever more be putting around the Brisbane River to remind people of the great contribution he has made.
So thanks very much, Chair. I commend the motion to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Seriatim - Clause E
|Councillor Jonathan SRI requested that Clause E, NAMING CITYCAT 23, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Councillor SRI: Thanks, yes. So just regarding the procurement criteria for the park equipment, exercise equipment et cetera, I just wanted to flag the concerns I have about how we define local. The MAYOR alluded to this briefly, but I do think there's an important different between equipment which is actually manufactured locally, where what you might call the raw materials are sourced locally, but also the actual parts and physical infrastructure is sourced and created locally, as opposed to equipment which is imported and simply being imported by a local company.
I think our criteria for what we define as local needs to be much more discerning and needs to recognise that simply having a local importer company that's importing stuff from overseas, doesn't general the same benefits to local small businesses within South East Queensland.
So going forward I'd like to see the Council have a stronger focus on ensuring that stuff is actually manufactured in the local area. I'm not sure that the criteria before us today in that item are discerning enough, and I'm sure that Council is looking at this behind the scenes, but the LORD MAYOR's comments didn't give me a lot of confidence on this front.
When you think about the fact that maybe most of the money is still going offshore and it's just one importer company that's taking a small cut of profits, that's nowhere near the same as actually employing dozens of local people in designing and manufacturing and painting and fabricate et cetera all this equipment.
So hopefully the MAYOR can just reflect on that a little bit and we'll see a bit of a shift in future where we're actually sourcing park equipment that's made locally and ideally from recycled or second-hand materials, rather than from new materials. Thanks.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I join the debate to speak briefly on item A, the sale and leaseback facility for Council's transport assets and item F, the Stores Board submission on the COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus program.
Now just quickly on item A, Council went to market to seek expressions of interest from a range of financiers to support our sale and leaseback facilities on Council transport assets. Now I would note we've been undertaking sale and leaseback activity for many, many years and at this point in time, as the LORD MAYOR indicated in his opening, we've got in excess of 1,200 buses in our fleet.
Quite a large number of those are through lease facilities, and when we went to market we sought a wide range of options from potential financiers, and in the interests of providing flexibility, we asked them to consider buses, both diesel and potentially future electric buses, to include the replacement CityCats in the financing program, and ultimately also Brisbane Metro vehicles.
I found that Councillor CASSIDY's comments were somewhat melodramatic about selling things before they'd even arrived; the Brisbane Metro vehicles haven't arrived yet. It was really quite emotional stuff, but at the end of the day the truth is rather simpler than that. We have gone about arranging a panel of financiers to continue what we've been doing for a long time, which is sale and leaseback arrangements.
It provides us with funding flexibility for our transport assets. It helps us to manage our risk so that if at the end of the lease term we don't want to retain that asset—possibly because the technology's changed—we don't need to. It also provides us with—by having a panel it ensures that we don't have concentration risk around one financier.
So certainly nothing mysterious in this. It's a great outcome and I guess we can be thankful that Councillor CASSIDY is still on the Opposition benches if he finds that sale and leasebacks are a problem.
Now moving on to item F, which is the COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus program, at the very outset I'd point out that this is a significant contracting plan and it's focused around grants that'll be available to Council from State and Federal Government.
In fact, this is a great news story. It's providing a great example of where Council can work with the State and Federal Government to bring about funding for key projects in the city that will support the construction industry, it'll support jobs and it'll provide economic stimulus right across the economy. So I think it's a somewhat misleading argument to suggest that this isn't a good thing.
Now one thing I would point out is that it's important that Brisbane continues to support the economic efforts of the recovery, because not only does it help Brisbane, it helps the wider South East Queensland economy. What we're seeking to do is to work with the State and Federal Government to bring these funds in and fast-track a range of projects.
Now importantly, funding is being sought, as I mentioned, from State and Federal programs, and in the context of the Australian Government, we're seeking funding through the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors programs, and the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program.
In the context of the Queensland Government, we're seeking funding through 2020-21 COVID Works for Queensland program and through the Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package.
In relation to those particular programs, the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors is focused on a number of projects across the city, and at this stage, we're waiting on confirmation of the projects that will be supported. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program, which is once again a Federal Government program, Council signed the funding agreement deed on 31 July, and there are 24 projects nominated in that particular program.
In the context of the COVID Works for Queensland program, which is a State Government program, there are a range of projects there to be funded and these need to be completed before 30 June 2021.
There are also programs under the Unite and Recover Community Grants program. That, once again, is a State Government program and we have a range of projects there that are potentially earmarked should we be able to secure funding.
So we are looking at maximising our funding from these different levels of government. We are looking to ensure that when those projects can be funded and progressed, that we optimise the opportunities for local suppliers, and obviously then support the economic activity across the wider city.
I think that the point that Councillor CASSIDY made—what's Council doing—I mean you only have to read the document. It's quite clear. This is all about State and Federal Government funding mechanisms. Councillor CASSIDY must have been asleep since 17 June when the Council Budget was handed down, which included $840 million worth of capital programs that the budget is funding, and a raft of other announcements, not only in the budget but since, around rate rebates, fee waivers and other stimulus measures.
I just don't know where he's been. There's an endless list of mechanisms and initiatives that Council has rolled out since the budget to support economic recovery, but if Councillor CASSIDY is so keen on what's going to happen on the economic stimulus front, I'd suggest he waits a couple of weeks because I've got a surprise coming for him. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
I see no hands so LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you in particular to Councillor Adam ALLAN. He was actually—must have been reading my mind there because he said a couple of things that I wanted to point out as well, particularly about Councillor CASSIDY's criticism of the programs that are being run by other levels of government but somehow was indicative of a problem with Council.
This submission was essentially about how we will gear up to deliver funding that we might receive from other levels of government through their stimulus programs. Yet Councillor CASSIDY somehow uses it as an opportunity to have a crack at us.
But look, the real thing I had concern with today was Councillor CASSIDY's comments on the naming of the 23rd CityCat after Neville Bonner. This is what happens when you have someone writing your speech for you and you're not nimble enough to actually realise that the speech is not relevant, and this is exactly what's happened here.
We are naming the next double-decker CityCat after an Indigenous leader in our community; someone who's done so much. It is very much out of respect for the Indigenous community, for the Jagera people and for their contribution, but more than that, I confirm that every single Indigenous name on a CityCat will live on in perpetuity.
So somehow Councillor CASSIDY has tried to use this opportunity to suggest that what's happening today is showing a lack of respect for our Indigenous communities. It's quite remarkable. As I said, this is what happens when you get someone to write a speech and you don't actually listen to what's happening in the meeting.
I have confirmed that not only will CityCat 23 be named in honour of a fantastic Indigenous Queenslander, but that all of the Indigenous names in place at the moment will continue on. Even if a vessel comes off the water, that name will live on in a new double-decker CityCat that replaces that vessel.
So those fantastic Indigenous names that represent different places along the Brisbane River will live on. I am very proud of that. This is a small but important part of the ongoing process of engaging with our Indigenous community, of respecting our Indigenous community, working with them and the ultimate ongoing process of reconciliation that I know we are all committed to.
But I just did want to say it was really disappointing the tone that Councillor CASSIDY took. I mean this is not something that he should use the opportunity to score some cheap points about. Certainly the naming after an Indigenous leader like Neville Bonner is something that I would have expected would have bipartisan support, or support from all Councillors, so it's really disappointing to see the contribution by Councillor CASSIDY today.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause A of the report of decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Clauses B, C, D and F put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause B, C, D and F of the report of decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Clause E put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause E of the report of decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor Steven TOOMEY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 26 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, and the Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
The report read as follows(
A SALE AND LEASE BACK FACILITY FOR COUNCIL’S TRANSPORT ASSETS
165/210/179/3511
13/2020-21
1. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.
2. Council has an existing Master (Operating Lease) Rental Facility Agreement for its bus fleet with Westpac Banking Corporation Limited (Westpac) that expires on 30 June 2020.
3. Following a select source Request for Proposals (RFP) in relation to a new sale and lease back facility, responses were received from Westpac, Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited (CBA) and National Australia Bank Limited (NAB). The RFP included buses, CityCats and Brisbane Metro vehicles with a term of the sale and lease back facility for an initial period of five years and two mutually agreed two-year extension options. The proposed sale and lease back facility allows Council to lease transport assets for periods of up to twelve years, with the term of the lease, including renewals, aligning with the age of the asset.
4. The RFP was assessed on criteria that included value for money, flexibility to fund new asset types, counterparty risk, documentation, terms and processes, ability to value add and local account management. All proposals submitted met Council’s criteria, with some variability across the assessed categories.
5. The RFP noted that Council may adopt a panel arrangement to minimise the concentration risk associated with a sole lease provider. Although Westpac, CBA and NAB provided fixed price margins in their submissions, recent financial market volatility associated with COVID-19 has resulted in the selected banks withdrawing their commitment to fixed price margins for a five-year term. The preferred arrangement is a panel arrangement to enable competitive pricing on a quarterly basis for new assets and for existing leased assets due to be refinanced for a further period.
6. To provide Council with flexibility, it is proposed that the Sale and Lease Back Facility Agreement be documented to consider a range of transport assets including buses, CityCats, Brisbane Metro vehicles and any new transport assets that may be considered in the future.
7. It is proposed that Council enters into Sale and Lease Back Facility Agreements under a panel arrangement with Westpac, CBA and NAB to fund Council’s transport assets for an initial period of five years and two mutually agreed two-year extension options. Mutually agreed extensions of the facility are recommended on the basis that the proposed panel arrangement will ensure that Council achieves competitive pricing. The Sale and Lease Back Agreements are provided in Attachments B, C and D (submitted on file).
8. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 6 July 2020.
9. DECISION:
THAT E&C, AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, DETERMINES AS PER THE DRAFT DETERMINATION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
DRAFT DETERMINATION TO APPROVE ENTRY INTO A SALE AND LEASE BACK FACILITY PANEL ARRANGEMENT FOR COUNCIL’S TRANSPORT ASSETS
As:
(i) Council finances its bus fleet through a leasing facility to minimise Council’s asset risk around owning assets in the event of either changes to technology or operational risks
(ii) Council has an existing Master (Operating Lease) Rental Facility Agreement for its bus fleet with Westpac Banking Corporation Limited (Westpac) that expires on 30 June 2020
(iii) Council requires a new sale and lease back facility to replace the expiring arrangement and proposes to extend the scope of the new facility to other transport assets such as its CityCats, Brisbane Metro vehicles and any new transport assets that may be considered in the future
(iv) the term of the sale and lease back facility panel arrangement will be for an initial period of five years with a mutually acceptable option for two extensions of two years
(v) Council recommends the proposals from Westpac, Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited (CBA) and National Australia Bank Limited (NAB) in response to the select source Request for Proposal process conducted for the new sale and lease back facility panel arrangement be accepted as suitable for the provision of Council’s leasing facility
(vi) Council proposes to adopt a sale and lease back facility panel arrangement with Westpac, CBA and NAB for the lease of its transport assets
(vii) Council requires the sale and lease back facility panel arrangement for the lease of Council’s transport assets including buses, CityCats, Brisbane Metro vehicles and any new transport assets that may be considered in the future to replace the existing Master (Operating Lease) Rental Facility Agreement that expires on 30 June 2020,
then E&C, as delegate of Council during recess:
(i) approves the entry into a sale and lease back facility panel arrangement with CBA, Westpac and NAB to fund Council’s transport assets
(ii) authorises the Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, and the Corporate Treasurer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, to:
(a) enter into and sign the respective Sale and Lease Back Facility Agreements establishing the panel with each of Westpac, CBA and NAB;
(b) enter into and sign the Sale and Lease Back Facility Agreements for the transport assets under the panel arrangement;
(c) manage the day to day administration of the panel arrangement and the lease agreements; and
(d) exercise the two plus two year options to renew under the Sale and Lease Back Facility Agreements with each of Westpac, CBA, and NAB respectively, subject to satisfactory performance under the panel arrangement and budgetary approval on the basis that the panel arrangement will ensure Council achieves a competitive price.
NOTED
B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES
165/830/179/737
14/2020-21
10. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
11. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 1 July 2020.
12. The submission is recommended to E&C, as delegate of Council during recess, as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.
13. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
Purpose
14. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan to establish a Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) in the form of a panel arrangement for the provision of Outdoor Activity Equipment and Associated Services. The CPA will be for an initial term of three years, with options to extend for additional periods of up to two years, for a maximum term of five years. The estimated expenditure is $37.5 million over the potential five-year term of the CPA.
Background/business case
15. Brisbane’s open spaces and greenspaces are enjoyed by residents and visitors who expect high quality outcomes including bushland and public properties. High quality outcomes include safe, inclusive and accessible environments, which are environmentally sustainable, visually appealing and sensitive to the built and urban environment and support the amenity of Council’s public spaces.
16. The scope of the CPA will include playground equipment, water play, outdoor gym equipment, dog agility equipment, under-surfacing, maintenance, repairs and design services. This will allow Council to deliver a diverse range of activity centres, integrating opportunities and amenities for all ages and abilities. Outcomes align with Council’s Active and Healthy Community and Social Inclusion programs and links to Council’s Brisbane Vision 2031 theme of Our Active, Healthy City.
17. On 19 February 2019, the Stores Board endorsed a strategy to allow Council’s CPA for the provision of playground equipment and shade structures (CPA 510222) to expire on 31 March 2020, as almost all outdoor activity projects for 2019-20 had been delivered or were in the final stages of delivery. This would also provide further time to consider the strategy for outdoor activity equipment, and any ad hoc requirements could be addressed by seeking quotes/tenders from the open market.
18. Council’s requirements regarding outdoor activity equipment have evolved, and continues to evolve, currently including a need for inspection and compliance services.
Policy and other considerations
19. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these goods/services/works?
CPA 510222 – Panel Arrangement for Construction Services relating to Playground Equipment (including Shade Structures), which commenced on 1 April 2015, expired on 31 March 2020. The CPA had 16 suppliers across the following categories:
- Category A – Playground supply and installation
- Category B – Under-surfacing supply and installation
- Category C – Shade structure supply and installation
- Category D – Repairs.
20. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?
No
21. Are there policy, or other issues, that the delegate should be aware of?
No
22. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
Yes, all aspects have been considered and are reflected in the evaluation plan and tender documents. Local benefits will carry a weighting of 30% of the non-price criteria and will include equipment country-of-origin as one of the parameters to be evaluated.
23. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
No
24. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
25. The category of outdoor activity equipment is highly dynamic as new products enter the market at a very fast rate with older equipment phased out equally as fast. Competitive suppliers stay well informed of the latest innovations and trends in the market. The market is currently undergoing transformation as demand grows for equipment that caters for a particular purpose or segment of the community.
26. The Global Playground Equipment market forecast (2018-2023) suggests that there will be an estimated growth of 10% during this period as disposable incomes lead to more expenditure on recreational activities and a strong focus on healthy lifestyles. The extent to which COVID-19 will impact this is currently unclear.
27. There is a reasonably large competitive market base in Australia that provides both standard and bespoke equipment, which can be either fully imported, fully locally manufactured or locally assembled from imported and local components. Many of the suppliers provide equipment suitable for all ages and abilities including child play, senior play, dog agility, outdoor gym and exercise equipment, water play, shade structures and under-surfacing, as well as ongoing maintenance and repairs.
28. The dynamic nature of the industry requires a degree of flexibility in any overarching arrangement to allow Council to take advantage of emerging trends and materials. New suppliers often enter the market with new and/or innovative products and, ideally, any overarching arrangement should allow for the assessment and inclusion of new trends/innovations as they emerge.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
29.
|Procurement objective: |To procure Outdoor Activity Equipment and Associated Services in a way which complies with|
| |the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act |
| |2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| | |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission. |
|Title of contract: |Outdoor Activity Equipment and Associated Services |
|Type of procurement: |Establishing a CPA in the form of a panel arrangement, which will include separate |
| |categories for: |
| |- Outdoor activity equipment supply, installation or supply and installation |
| |- Under-surfacing supply and installation |
| |- Shade structure supply and installation |
| |- Maintenance and repairs (outside of warranty and defects period) |
| |- Design only service (nonspecific concept design) |
| |- Compliance inspection and audits. |
| | |
| |The CPA will include flexibility for Council to procure outside of the arrangement. For |
| |example, a larger project with an outdoor activity equipment component. |
|Process to be used: |Request for Proposals (RFP) |
|RFP standard to be used (and any |The RFP standard will be Council’s corporate standard with no amendments. |
|amendments to the standard): | |
|Advertising/sole or select |Offers are to be sought publicly via Council’s supplier portal. |
|sourcing: | |
|How RFP is to be distributed and |Via Council’s supplier portal. |
|submitted: | |
|How proposals are to be lodged: |Via Council’s supplier portal. |
|Part offers: |Part offers will be considered. |
|Joint offers: |Joint offers will not be considered. |
|Contract standard to be used (and|Council’s standard Construction Works Panel Arrangement contract. The arrangement will |
|any amends): |include a provision that allows Council to add further participants to the panel if needed|
| |or to include participants with new and innovative equipment. Any additions to the panel |
| |will be approved by submission to the Chief Procurement Officer, Strategic Procurement |
| |Office (SPO), Organisational Services (OS). The contract will also include Council |
| |contract standards that are utilised for work under the panel. The arrangement will be |
| |amended to include a clause allowing other entities to procure under the arrangement, with|
| |both Council and the supplier’s consent. |
|Period/term of contract: |An initial term of three years, with options to extend for additional periods of up to two|
| |years, for a maximum term of five years. |
|Insurance requirements: |Public liability of $20 million, product liability of $20 million, professional indemnity |
| |of $5 million (where required) and motor vehicle insurance of $20 million. Workers’ |
| |compensation insurance to an amount as required by legislative requirements in Queensland.|
|Price basis: |The CPA will not include a schedule of rates for all categories. For the majority of the |
| |work under the panel, competitive quotes will be sought from the panel on a complete |
| |project by project basis, and agreed pricing for individual pieces of equipment or |
| |component activity is not relevant. For some categories, selected unit-prices for standard|
| |services or items are relevant and will be obtained. |
|Price adjustment: |Where unit rates apply, standard CPI. |
|Liquidated damages: |No |
|Security for the contract: |Nil |
|Defects liability period/warranty|As reflected in each applicable Minor Works Instrument of Agreement. |
|period: | |
|Other strategy elements: |As Council is not seeking unit-prices for all categories in the CPA, tenderers will be |
| |requested to include a quote for one or more sample projects provided by Council. These |
| |projects may be awarded as part of the establishment of the panel. The quotes will also be|
| |required to include a concept design, which will also allow Council to assess the design |
| |capability and creativity of the tenderers. |
| | |
| |During the arrangement, aggregation of works and principal contractor projects where |
| |feasible, may be utilised to deliver savings and efficiencies. |
|Alternative strategies |- No arrangement (quotes/tender for each project from the open market). This option |
|considered: |offered limited opportunity to reduce Council and supplier transaction costs, for example,|
| |via agreement on contractual terms and pre-qualification of capability, track record |
| |capacity and insurance arrangements. These opportunities were considered sufficient to |
| |warrant the cost of establishing a Council arrangement. |
| |- Utilising the Local Buy arrangement. In this instance, analysis found that a Council |
| |arrangement would provide a more cost-effective outcome. |
Anticipated schedule
30. Pre-market approval: 13 July 2020
Date of release to market: 23 July 2020
Tender closing: 21 August 2020
Evaluation completion: 11 November 2020
Contract prepared: 26 November 2020
Post-market approval: 14 December 2020
Contract commencement: 21 December 2020
Budget
31. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA/contract (including any options):
Estimated annual expenditure is anticipated to be $7.5 million or $37.5 million over the potential maximum five-year term of the CPA.
32. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract?
Establishing the CPA will not commit Council to any purchases. Funding is only required when an appropriately delegated Council officer approves entering into a contract made under the CPA. Funding is available in Council’s current and forward financial year approved budgets.
33. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):
Competitive quotes will be sought for all orders placed under the CPA by Council. Any procurements savings will be reported in the post market approval for each quote.
Procurement risk
34. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Financial risk |
|Price basis of contract is |Low |- No fixed schedule of rates for the CPA. |Council and |
|outside of market rates | |- Each project to be competitively tendered from the |contractor |
| | |panel to ensure current market rates are achieved. | |
|Operational risk |
|Quality of products or service |Medium |- Requirements for design, installation and maintenance |Council and |
| | |must be clearly defined in the project brief of |contractor |
| | |specifications. | |
| | |- Products must meet relevant Australian or | |
| | |international standards. | |
|Management of the contract and |Medium |- Roles and responsibilities clearly defined in the |Council and |
|sub-contractors | |contract management plan and clearly articulated at the |contractor |
| | |commencement of the CPA. | |
|Delivery and performance |Medium |- Evaluation of quotations and the management of project|Council |
| | |deliverables by relevant project managers. | |
| | |- Use of contractor performance reports and key | |
| | |performance indicators during contractor performance | |
| | |review meetings. | |
|Risk of business |Low |- Evaluation of financial viability, staff and business |Council |
|discontinuity/failure (supplier| |continuity. | |
|may become financially | |- Ensure adequate number of panel members awarded to | |
|insolvent or lose segment | |CPA. | |
|resources) | | | |
|Contractual risk |
|Insurance |Low |- Tenderers must accept terms and conditions of contract|Council |
| | |to be considered. | |
| | |- Panel members to maintain the level of insurance | |
| | |specified in the CPA. | |
35. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
No
Tender evaluation
36. Evaluation criteria:
(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:
- has the required insurances or committed to obtaining these if successful
- satisfactory response relating to legislative and regulatory obligations declaration (e.g. fair work, safety and environmental)
- satisfactory financial position
- acceptance to terms and conditions of contract
(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:
Submissions will be scored against the following weighted criteria.
|Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting (%) |
|Capability, capacity, track record and experience |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Local benefits |30 |
|Safety, quality and environmental systems |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Commercial |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |100 |
(c) Price model:
For categories where Council is not seeking unit-prices, shortlisted tenderers will be asked to submit pricing for complete sample projects (e.g. complete playground or outdoor exercise area) to be used as the comparative price for those categories. For categories where Council is seeking unit-prices, a basket of goods using the tendered unit-prices will be used to determine the comparative prices for those categories.
37. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
initial shortlist will be based on the non-price weighted scores. Further shortlists, if required, will be based on the value for money (VFM) scores. At any time during the evaluation, a submission may be excluded from further evaluation or a shortlist where:
- a score against any criterion (regardless of weighting) is so low that the proposal is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council
- the proposal contains non-compliances with the specifications that the evaluation team considers to be unacceptable/not advantageous for Council
- the proposal/tenderer is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council, regardless of the criteria stated in the tender documents.
Any submission may be included on any shortlist where the evaluation team considers that, despite the score achieved, there are strong, documented commercial reasons for further consideration of the proposal.
(b) Value for money method:
Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is the non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
38. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 13 July 2020.
39. DECISION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN TO ESTABLISH A CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) IN THE FORM OF A PANEL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES. THE CPA WILL BE FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF UP TO TWO YEARS FOR A MAXIMUM TERM OF FIVE YEARS. THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IS $37.5 MILLION OVER THE POTENTIAL FIVE-YEAR TERM OF THE CPA.
NOTED
C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – BITUMEN SEALING AND PAVEMENT REJUVENATION SERVICES
165/830/179/729-002
15/2020-21
40. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
41. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 1 July 2020.
42. The submission is recommended to E&C, as delegate of Council during recess, as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.
43. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
Purpose
44. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan to establish a Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) for Bitumen Sealing and Pavement Rejuvenation Services. The CPA will be for an initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to four years, for a maximum term of seven years. The estimated expenditure is $18.2 million over the potential seven-year term of the CPA.
Background/business case
45. Asphalt and Aggregates, Field Services (FS), Brisbane Infrastructure (BI), is responsible for the Road Network Resurfacing Program which will deliver $240 million of road resurfacing over the next four years. To deliver this program, Council requires a range of services from suppliers. Two of these services are Bitumen Sealing and Pavement Rejuvenation Services. Bitumen Sealing funding is included in the Road Network Resurfacing Program. Funding for Pavement Rejuvenation Services is from the Paved Road Maintenance Program.
46. Bitumen Sealing involves prime and spray seals used to waterproof and protect the road sub-base from water ingress. Road pavement rejuvenation uses thin surface treatments and crack sealing to extend the life of road pavements, reducing the frequency of more expensive road resurfacing and reducing whole of life costs.
47. A CPA for Bitumen Sealing with one supplier is currently in place and is due to expire on 28 November 2020. This arrangement initially had two contractors, however, one of the suppliers decided not to extend their contract with Council in 2018. A CPA was in place for Thin Pavement Rejuvenation Services with two suppliers, which expired on 11 March 2020. This CPA was allowed to expire at the end of its initial term as requirements for these services are not expected until late 2020. It was identified that these two requirements could be combined under one CPA, as several suppliers provide both services. Asphalt and Aggregates use both these CPAs as required.
Policy and other considerations
48. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these goods/services/works?
Yes, the current CPA for the provision of Bitumen Prime and Sealing (510377) commenced on 29 November 2015. All available extensions have been exercised and the arrangement is due to expire on 28 November 2020. The previous CPA for Thin Surfacing Rejuvenation Services (520450) expired on 11 March 2020. There was an option to extend this arrangement for a one-year period. This option was not taken up as requirements were not expected until late 2020.
49. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?
No, Asphalt and Aggregates manages and supervises these works but does not have the specialised equipment or trained staff to provide these services. These services are not required on a full-time basis.
50. Are there policy, or other issues, that the delegate should be aware of?
No
51. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
Yes, the specification places emphasis on zero harm and quality assurance, particularly regarding site work practices. Most service providers are expected to have a significant local presence and provide local employment opportunities as part of their service provision.
52. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
No
53. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
54. In addition to Council’s current supplier (Colas) for bitumen prime and seal, there are at least five other suppliers operating in South East Queensland that may be able to service Council’s needs, including Boral, RPQ, Fulton Hogan, Allens Asphalt and Suncoast Asphalt. There are a number of smaller suppliers, however, it is unclear whether they possess the resources to meet Council’s needs. Suppliers that have tendered in the past for Council’s pavement rejuvenation include RPQ, Allens Asphalt, Fulton Hogan, Colas, Downer and Roadwork Industries.
55. The market for these services is stable and competitive. High value, specialised equipment provides a relatively high barrier to entry for new market participants and significant market changes are not expected during the term of the proposed arrangement.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
56.
|Procurement objective: |To procure bitumen sealing and pavement rejuvenation services in a way which complies with|
| |the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act |
| |2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| | |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission. |
|Title of contract: |Bitumen Sealing and Pavement Rejuvenation Services |
|Type of procurement: |Establishing a CPA, which will include separate categories for: |
| |- Category One – Bitumen Sealing |
| |- Category Two – Pavement Rejuvenation Services. |
| | |
| |The CPA may be either a panel or preferred supplier arrangement. This will be considered |
| |and determined during the evaluation process. |
|Process to be used: |Request for Proposals (RFP) |
|RFP standard to be used (and any |The RFP will be Council’s corporate standard with no amendments. |
|amendments to the standard): | |
|Market engagement: |Proposals are to be sought publicly via Council’s supplier portal. |
|How RFP is to be distributed and |Via Council’s supplier portal. |
|submitted: | |
|How tenders/proposals are to be |Via Council’s supplier portal. |
|lodged: | |
|Part offers: |Tenderers may provide a proposal for one or both categories. |
|Joint offers: |Joint offers will not be considered. |
|Contract standard to be used (and|Goods and Services Panel Arrangement. A panel refresh clause will be included for the |
|any amends): |provision to refresh the panel during the term of the contract. The refresh clause will |
| |allow Council to add additional suppliers to the arrangement. The panel refresh will be by|
| |public tender. |
|Period/term of contract: |An initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to four|
| |years for a maximum term of seven years. |
|Insurance requirements: |Public liability of $20 million, product liability of $20 million and motor vehicle |
| |insurance of $20 million. Workers’ compensation insurance to an amount as required by |
| |legislative requirements in Queensland. |
|Price basis: |Schedule of rates |
|Price adjustment: |To be established as a result of negotiations and advised in the post-market submission. |
|Liquidated damages: |No, however, the contract is expected to include the right to recover direct costs |
| |incurred from the contractor in the event of a machine breakdown or failure to supply to |
| |the agreed timeframe. |
|Security for the contract: |Not applicable |
|Defects liability period/warranty|Not applicable |
|period: | |
|Other strategy elements: |Nil |
|Alternative strategies |Other strategies such as purchase/lease of the equipment were considered. Purchase/lease |
|considered: |would require significant investment in equipment, maintenance, storage and training. This|
| |investment is not warranted for intermittent and low volume service provision. |
Anticipated schedule
57. Pre-market approval: 20 July 2020
Date of release to market: 24 July 2020
Tender closing: 19 August 2020
Evaluation completion: 9 October 2020
Contract prepared: 9 October 2020
Post-market approval: 9 November 2020
Contract commencement: 29 November 2020
Budget
58. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA/contract (including any options):
The average annual spend over the potential seven-year term of the arrangement is $2.6 million. The estimated expenditure is $18.2 million over the potential seven-year term.
59. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract?
Establishing the CPA will not commit Council to any purchases. Funding is only required when an appropriately delegated Council officer approves entering into a contract made under the CPA. Funding is available in Council’s current and forward financial year approved budgets.
60. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):
To be established and reported in the post-market submission.
Procurement risk
61. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Service quality and/or |Medium |- Initial evaluations will review the previous |Council and |
|performance issues | |experience, management systems and capability of |Contractor |
| | |tenderers. | |
| | |- Specifications and contract terms detail performance | |
| | |requirements, rights and obligations. | |
|Workplace Health and Safety |Medium |- Covered in specifications and assessed in evaluation. |Council |
|Limited response |Medium |- Known suppliers in the market will be contacted to |Council |
| | |ensure a competitive response. | |
|Price continuity |Medium |- Prices are expected to be fixed for a period and then |Council and |
| | |subject to agreed rise and fall methodology. |Contractor |
|Risk of business |Low |- Evaluation of financial viability. |Council |
|discontinuity/failure | | | |
|Insurances |Low |- CPA members to maintain level of insurance specified |Council |
| | |in the contract. | |
62. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
No
Tender evaluation
63. Evaluation criteria:
(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:
- has the required insurances, or has a commitment to obtain such insurances
- has appropriate safety management systems and practices (third party certified or demonstrated equivalent) or commitment to achieve this prior to performing work under the new CPA
- satisfactory response to legislative compliance (e.g. fair work)
- has a current ABN
- satisfactory financial viability.
(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:
| Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting (%) |
|Local benefits |30 |
|Track record, capability and expertise |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Capacity to deliver |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Methodology and management systems |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |100 |
(c) Price model:
Basket of commonly purchased services for each category, with volumes based on previous usage.
64. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
An initial shortlist, if required, will be based on the non-price weighted scores. Further shortlists, if required, will be based on the value for money (VFM) scores. At any time during the evaluation, a submission may be excluded from further evaluation or a shortlist where:
- a score against any criterion (regardless of weighting) is so low that the proposal is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council
- the proposal contains non-compliances with the specifications or draft contract that the evaluation team considers to be unacceptable/not advantageous for Council
- the proposal/tenderer is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council, regardless of the criteria stated in the tender documents.
Any submission may be included on any shortlist where the evaluation team considers that, despite the score achieved, there are strong, documented commercial reasons for further consideration of the proposal.
(b) VFM method:
Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is the non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
65. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 13 July 2020.
66. DECISION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN TO ESTABLISH A CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) FOR BITUMEN SEALING AND PAVEMENT REJUVENATION SERVICES. THE CPA WILL BE FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF UP TO FOUR YEARS, FOR A MAXIMUM TERM OF SEVEN YEARS. THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IS $18.2 MILLION OVER THE POTENTIAL SEVEN-YEAR TERM OF THE CPA.
NOTED
D STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – STATIC SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
165/830/179/750
16/2020-21
67. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
68. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 1 July 2020.
69. The submission is recommended to E&C, as delegate of Council during recess, as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required products.
70. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
Purpose
71. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan to establish a Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) for Static Signs and Traffic Control Devices. The CPA will be for an initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to six years for a maximum term of nine years. The estimated expenditure is $10.8 million over the potential nine-year term of the CPA.
Background/business case
72. Council’s transport network, including roads, parking areas, bikeways, footpaths and trails, relies on a range of fixed signs to operate safely and effectively. Temporary signs and other traffic control devices (such as cones and bollards) are also required during new construction, upgrades and maintenance of the network. Council requires custom signs such as wayfinding, project information and tourist signs to ensure safe and efficient travel.
73. A review of Council’s expected requirement for network signs and related items, as well as of the current, local and diverse supply market has identified an opportunity to establish a CPA that will support the cost-effective delivery of the Brisbane Vision 2031 theme of Our accessible, connected city.
74. Transport for Brisbane’s signs workshop has the ability to manufacture signs in small quantities, however, it does not seek to compete with bulk manufacturing facilities. By maintaining appropriate stock levels of regulatory signs sourced from commercial suppliers, Field Services (FS), Brisbane Infrastructure (BI), is able to cost-effectively support the delivery of the bulk of Council’s network signage. This enables Council to maintain reliable signage while retaining the flexibility to react quickly to urgent requirements. Council’s store at the Regional Operations Centre Eagle Farm maintains stocks, ensuring good prices and availability for a large range of signs and traffic control devices. Council’s store orders, receives and stores a range of posts and associated fittings.
75. A comparatively small number of custom signs required by Council are often procured on the basis of specialist design and manufacture. Such purchases may include installation or delivery to a Council office or project.
76. Signs and plinths with lighting or materials such as wood, stone and etched metal are not within the scope of this arrangement.
Policy and other considerations
77. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these goods/services/works?
Yes, the current CPA 510360 (Signage and Traffic Control Devices) commenced on 21 November 2015. All available extensions have been exercised and the arrangement is due to expire on 20 November 2020.
78. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?
Transport for Brisbane’s signs workshop produces comparatively small amounts of urgent corflute and temporary signs only. It is considered likely that the workshop will continue to provide this service when private sector suppliers are unable to meet Council’s urgent requirements. Council does not have the specialised equipment or trained staff to manufacture the permanent signs or traffic control devices.
79. Are there policy, or other issues, that the delegate should be aware of?
No
80. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
Yes, the specification places emphasis on zero harm and quality assurance, particularly regarding site work practices. Many suppliers have a significant presence in Brisbane and local benefits, including the number of jobs supported, will be considered as part of the evaluation criteria.
81. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
No
82. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
83. Standard signs are often manufactured internationally, however all signs can be produced locally from local and imported materials (such as steel pipe, corflute boards, aluminium sheets and coatings). The supply market for signs in Brisbane is large and diverse, including suppliers that:
- have large Australian manufacturing facilities that can cost effectively supply standard regulatory signs and fittings (e.g. De Neefe, based in Melbourne)
- can rapidly manufacture and deliver non-stock items (such as directional signs) typically via local manufacturing facilities (e.g. Reflective Signs and Decals, based in Wacol)
- specialise in the design, manufacture and/or installation of custom signs (e.g. Harlequin, based in Slacks Creek, and Dot Dash, based in Brisbane).
84. Traffic control devices are almost exclusively manufactured outside of Australia. The supply market for these items is dominated by suppliers, such as Signet and Jaybro, that stock large quantities in South East Queensland and can compete effectively on price. Notwithstanding the stock levels of these suppliers, bulk orders may incur lead times due to shipping.
85. Large entities such as tollway operators do manage signs as one aspect of providing comprehensive road asset management services, however, the local supply market does not appear to support a managed service approach to the maintenance and repair of existing signs over the transport network that Council manages.
86. The market for these services is stable and competitive. Significant market changes are not expected.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
87.
|Procurement objective: |To procure static signs and traffic control devices in a way which complies with the Sound|
| |Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and |
| |provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| | |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission. |
|Title of contract: |Static Signs and Traffic Control Devices |
|Type of procurement: |Establishing a CPA in the form of a panel arrangement, possibly including preferred |
| |supplier/s, for the bulk-supplied items at contracted rates, and including prequalified |
| |suppliers for quotable work involving design, custom manufacturing and installation |
| |capability. The precise form of the arrangement will be considered and determined during |
| |the evaluation process. |
|Process to be used: |Request for Proposals (RFP) |
|RFT/P/Q or EOI standard to be |The RFP will be Council’s corporate standard with no amendments. |
|used (and any amendments to the | |
|standard): | |
|Market engagement process: |Proposals are to be sought publicly via Council’s supplier portal. |
|How RFT/P/Q or EOI is to be |Via Council’s supplier portal |
|distributed and submitted: | |
|How tenders/proposals are to be |Via Council’s supplier portal |
|lodged: | |
|Part offers: |Part offers will be considered as its unlikely that any tenderer has the capability of |
| |competitively supplying all products covered by this CPA. Offers that do not meet the |
| |specification (e.g. supply excluding delivery) may be considered as an alternative offer |
| |only where a conforming offer has been submitted by that tenderer. |
|Joint offers: |Joint offers may not be considered. |
|Contract standard to be used (and|Goods and Services Panel Arrangement. A panel refresh clause will be included to refresh |
|any amends): |the panel during the term of the contract. The refresh clause will allow Council to add |
| |additional suppliers to the arrangement. The panel refresh will be by public tender. |
|Period/term of contract: |An initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to six |
| |years for a maximum term of nine years. |
|Insurance requirements: |Public liability of $20 million, product liability of $20 million and motor vehicle |
| |insurance of $20 million. Workers’ compensation insurance to an amount as required by |
| |legislative requirements in Queensland. |
|Price basis: |Schedule of rates for bulk-supplied items such as standard (fixed and temporary) signs and|
| |other traffic control devices. |
| | |
| |Work will be quoted on a per project basis for custom signs that typically involve design,|
| |manufacturing and installation. |
|Price adjustment: |To be established as a result of negotiations and advised in the post-market submission. |
|Liquidated damages: |No, however, the contract is expected to include the right to recover direct costs |
| |incurred from the contractor, such as in the event of a machine breakdown or failure to |
| |supply to agreed timeframe. |
|Security for the contract: |Not applicable |
|Defects liability/ |Warranties offered will be considered as part of the evaluation. |
|warranty period: | |
|Other strategy elements: |Any options to improve work order tracking with Council’s warehouse or with Field |
| |Services’ Signs section will be considered as a value-add. Council may opt to use |
| |alternate suppliers where it is more advantageous to do so. |
|Alternative strategies |Local Buy has an arrangement (BUS267) for open space infrastructure which includes custom,|
|considered: |street and direction signs, but not traffic signs. |
| | |
| |The Queensland Government’s Transport and Main Roads arrangement TMR13815 for road signs, |
| |posts and fittings does not provide items that meet Council’s specifications. |
| | |
| |A managed service approach may have been a suitable strategy option, however, the local |
| |supply market does not currently support a managed service approach to the maintenance and|
| |repair of existing fixed signs over the transport network that Council manages. |
Anticipated schedule
88. Pre-market approval: 13 July 2020
Date of release to market: 17 July 2020
Tender closing: 13 August 2020
Evaluation completion: 9 October 2020
Contract prepared: 9 October 2020
Post-market approval: 9 November 2020
Contract commencement: 20 November 2020
Budget
89. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA/contract (including any options):
The average annual spend over the potential nine-year term of the arrangement is $1.2 million. The estimated expenditure is $10.8 million over the potential nine-year term.
90. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract?
Establishing the CPA will not commit Council to any purchases. Funding is only required when an appropriately delegated Council officer approves entering into a contract made under the CPA. Funding is available in Council’s current and forward financial year approved budgets.
91. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):
To be established and reported in the post-market submission.
Procurement risk
92. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Service quality and/or |Medium |- Initial evaluations will review the previous |Council and |
|performance issues | |experience, management systems and capability of |contractor |
| | |tenderers. | |
| | |- Specifications and contract terms detail performance | |
| | |requirements, rights and obligations. | |
|Workplace Health and Safety |Medium |- Covered in specifications and assessed in evaluation. |Council |
|(WH&S) | | | |
|Limited response |Low |- Known suppliers in the market will be contacted to |Council |
| | |ensure a competitive response. | |
|Price continuity |Medium |- Prices are expected to be fixed for a period and then |Council and |
| | |subject to agreed rise and fall methodology. |contractor |
|Risk of business |Low |- Evaluation of financial viability. |Council |
|discontinuity/failure | |- Multiple suppliers for some items. | |
| | |- Ensure Council’s stock levels are adequate. | |
|Insurances |Low |- CPA members to maintain level of insurance specified |Council |
| | |in the contract. | |
93. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
No
Tender evaluation
94. Evaluation criteria:
(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:
- has the required insurances, or has a commitment to obtain such insurance
- has appropriate safety management systems and practices (third party certified or demonstrated equivalent) or commitment to achieve this prior to performing work under the new CPA
- satisfactory response to legislative compliance (e.g. fair work)
- has a current ABN
- satisfactory financial viability.
(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:
Submissions will be scored against these.
|Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting (%) |
|Local benefits |30 |
|Capability, track record, and expertise |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Capacity to deliver |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Methodology and management systems |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |100 |
(c) Price model:
For suppliers of priced bulk-supplied items such as standard (fixed and temporary) signs and other traffic control devices: Baskets of goods, with volumes based on Council’s previous usage.
For suppliers of custom signs the price model is not applicable as quotes will be sought for their design, manufacturing and installation where applicable.
95. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
An initial shortlist, if required, will be based on the non-price weighted scores. Further shortlists, if required, will be based on the value for money (VFM) scores. At any time during the evaluation, a submission may be excluded from further evaluation or a shortlist where:
- a score against any criterion (regardless of weighting) is so low that the proposal is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council
- the proposal contains non-compliances with the specifications or draft contract that the evaluation team considers to be unacceptable/not advantageous for Council
- the proposal/tenderer is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council, regardless of the criteria stated in the tender documents.
Any submission may be included on any shortlist where the Evaluation Team considers that, despite the score achieved, there are strong, documented commercial reasons for further consideration of the proposal.
(b) VFM method:
For suppliers of priced bulk-supplied items: Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is the non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
For suppliers of quotable work: Evaluation will be based on the non-price criteria only. VFM will be achieved via competitive quoting on a per project basis.
96. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 13 July 2020.
97. DECISION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN TO ESTABLISH A CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) FOR STATIC SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. THE CPA WILL BE FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF UP TO SIX YEARS FOR A MAXIMUM TERM OF NINE YEARS. THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IS $10.8 MILLION OVER THE POTENTIAL NINE-YEAR TERM OF THE CPA.
NOTED
E NAMING CITYCAT 23
188/590/649/41
17/2020-21
98. The Divisional Manager, Transport for Brisbane, provided the information below.
99. Since its introduction in 1996, the CityCat fleet has been named using Aboriginal place names for areas along the Brisbane River, most of these being within the current CityCat network route. The exception is CityCat 19, Spirit of Brisbane, which was named in recognition of the volunteers that assisted Brisbane residents and business owners impacted by the 2011 January floods.
100. To help identify suitable names for future CityCats, Transport for Brisbane has worked with Connected Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, who sent a letter on 3 April 2020 to five Traditional Custodian representatives seeking their input in naming the vessel. No responses were received by the requested due dates.
101. A name is required for CityCat 23 as a matter of urgency to enable enough time to register the vessel so it can commence services in September 2020.
102. CityCat 23 is the first vessel to be delivered as a part of Council’s CityCat next-generation replacement project.
103. Naming CityCat 23 ‘Neville Bonner’ will honour the naming tradition of an Aboriginal reference and will also honour the life and legacy of Australia’s first Indigenous parliamentarian. The family of Neville Bonner have been approached and are supportive of the naming in honour of their ancestor.
104. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 13 July 2020.
105. DECISION:
THAT E&C, AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVES THE NAME ‘NEVILLE BONNER’ FOR CITYCAT 23.
NOTED
F STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – BRISBANE COVID-19 INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM
165/830/179/776
18/2020-21
106. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
107. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 6 July 2020.
108. The submission is recommended to E&C, as delegate of Council during recess, as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.
Purpose
109. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan (SCP) for the Brisbane COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus Program. The program will deliver expedited projects for Brisbane, funded by a range of grants (from entities such as the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (CCCLM), and the Queensland and Australian Governments), providing economic stimulus to South East Queensland as part of the economic recovery from COVID-19.
Background/business case
110. As the largest local government in Australia, Council has a vital role in South East Queensland’s economic recovery from the impacts of COVID-19. Council is in the process of seeking a range of grant funding, through the following and potential future grant initiatives:
- Australian Government – through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program
- Australian Government – through the CCCLM
- Queensland Government – through the 2020-21 COVID Works for Queensland Program
- Queensland Government – through Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package.
111. This funding will enable Council to provide economic stimulus for South East Queensland through expedited delivery of a range of key infrastructure for Brisbane. However, grant funding requirements differ, for example:
- CCCLM round one grants require that construction commencement is to be within six months
- The 2020-21 COVID Works for Queensland and Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package grants require completion by June 2021.
112. This SCP sets the strategy for expedited procurement of all projects approved for funding (fully or in part) by the applicable grant provider from different grant programs, for economic stimulus as part of the recovery from COVID-19.
Policy and other considerations
113. Is there an existing Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA)/contract for these goods/services/works?
Yes, a range of CPAs may be used in the delivery of this program.
114. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?
No. While some aspects of the work may be completed by Council businesses, in terms of project management and technical services, Council does not have the capacity to complete all of the work to deliver these projects. Grant requirements require the engagement of external contractors for local stimulus and eligibility.
115. Are there policy, or other issues?
No
116. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
These considerations will be included in the procurement of each project under the program. Local benefits will carry a weighting in accordance with Council’s SP103 Procurement Policy and Plan 2019-20 in place at the time of that procurement.
117. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
Yes
118. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
119. The Queensland construction industry has faced significant challenges in the last 12 months, including significant impacts from COVID-19. Recent insolvencies among construction businesses highlights tightening conditions.
120. The construction industry may endure further impacts stemming from COVID-19, such as currency exchange rates fluctuations and supply chain disruption for building materials (including bitumen, steel and composite products), heavy machinery equipment and parts.
121. Expedited procurement of infrastructure projects will provide vital stimulus to civil and civic supply markets, including their related supply chains.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
122.
|Procurement objective: |To procure the Brisbane COVID-19 Infrastructure Economic Stimulus Program in a way which |
| |complies with the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of |
| |Brisbane Act 2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| | |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission for the delivery of each project under the program. |
|Program overview and expedited |The program is expected to deliver a high volume of projects in a short period. This SCP |
|delivery: |will apply to all projects approved for funding (fully or in part), by the applicable |
| |grant provider from different grant programs, for economic stimulus as part of the |
| |recovery from COVID-19. The final list of projects for the respective grant applications |
| |is being determined in conjunction with the Queensland and Australian Governments. |
| | |
| |Timely and effective economic stimulus and adherence to grant funding conditions require |
| |expedited procurement of these projects. To facilitate expedited procurement, the |
| |following is proposed. |
| |- This SCP sets the high-level strategy for all contracting activities under the program |
| |(including individual projects/contracts with a value of $10 million or above). |
| |- Additional pre-market approvals and post-market approvals will be delegated to |
| |appropriate levels as determined by the Chief Executive Officer. Additional pre-market |
| |approval will provide governance over market documents issued and address elements such as|
| |those outlined below in Construction delivery, Design work and Ancillary procurements. |
| |- Additional pre-market approvals and post-market approvals may use compressed timeframes |
| |as determined in consultation with the Chief Procurement Officer, Strategic Procurement |
| |Office, Organisational Services. |
| |- An arrangement may be established with one or more suppliers for fast-tracked design |
| |development (where the project will be delivered with a construct to design contract |
| |model) as summarised in Design work below. |
| | |
| |All procurement will be in line with Council’s SP103 Procurement Policy and Plan 2019-20 |
| |in place at the time of that procurement. |
|Construction delivery: |The contract model used to deliver the construction of each project will be selected based|
| |on individual project drivers such as time constraints, scope certainty, level of design |
| |undertaken to date (if any) and requirement for control of the design by Council. Details |
| |of the process to be used such as templates, distribution and lodgement of submissions, |
| |part offers, joint offers and price basis will be via additional pre-market approvals. |
|Design work: |Where there is insufficient capacity/capability to deliver designs internally: |
| |- an arrangement may be established with one or more suppliers for fast-tracked design |
| |development/finalisation (e.g. a preferred supplier arrangement/s) |
| |- this is expected to use a competitive process to select a supplier(s) from Council’s |
| |Infrastructure Design Consultancy CPA. |
| | |
| |In addition, to enable internal design resources to be diverted to work on projects for |
| |economic stimulus as part of the recovery from COVID-19, this preferred supplier |
| |arrangement(s) may be used to procure design work for projects not related to economic |
| |stimulus projects. |
| | |
| |Pre-market and post-market approval for selection of this supplier(s) will be by the Chief|
| |Executive Officer (through the Stores Board). |
|Ancillary procurements: |A range of ancillary procurements may be required to assist with the delivery of these |
| |projects, such as project management, contract management, communications, geotechnical or|
| |other site/technical investigations. This may include establishment of one or more |
| |program-specific CPAs. |
| | |
| |Pre-market and post-market approval for these procurements will be in line with existing |
| |delegations (and appropriate sub-delegations as determined by the Chief Executive |
| |Officer). |
|Processes to be used: |Where applicable and where public tenders are not suitable, CPAs are expected to be used |
| |in line with current procedures and practices. |
| | |
| |Public tenders are generally sought via a Request for Proposals/Tenders (RFP/Ts). For |
| |larger or more complex projects: |
| |- an initial Expression of Interest (EOI) process may be used to shortlist suitable |
| |suppliers, reducing costs to the market |
| |- collaborative tender processes may be used, such as Early Tender Involvement (to |
| |optimise/de-risk a Council design/procured design) or Early Contractor Involvement (to |
| |optimise/de-risk a proposed design and construct contract). |
|Standards to be used (and any |Process documents issued to the market (e.g. EOI or RFP) and contract templates will |
|amendments to the standard): |generally use Council’s corporate standards. Some amendments to those standards may be |
| |required, for example to facilitate collaborative tendering processes on larger or more |
| |complex projects or amend contract standards to address project specific |
| |requirements/negotiated outcomes. Some more complex projects may require development of |
| |bespoke contract standards. |
|Other process considerations: |For larger purchases, other considerations will be addressed via additional pre-market |
| |approvals (refer to Program overview and expedited delivery), such as: |
| |- advertising/sole or select sourcing |
| |- EOI/RFP/RFT distribution and lodgement |
| |- part offers and joint offers |
| |- contract standard to be used (and any amends) |
| |- proposed period/term of contract |
| |- proposed insurance requirements |
| |- price basis and any adjustment |
| |- proposed liquidated damages |
| |- security for the contract |
| |- defects liability period/warranty period. |
|Other strategy elements: |Ancillary procurement such as additional project management, procurement and contract |
| |administration support can be procured to ensure timely delivery of the program. |
| | |
| |Some project bundling may occur to facilitate delivery within grant funding requirements. |
| |However, strong consideration will be given to maximising participation from local and |
| |small suppliers. |
|Alternative strategies |Managing contractor – procure a managing contractor. The managing contractor seeks |
|considered: |quotes/tenders for project work, engages and manages the sub-contractors. The recommended |
| |strategy would provide Council with greater control over the evaluation, award and |
| |administration of contracts and the overall program. The recommended strategy is therefore|
| |better suited to ensuring increased head-contractor engagement and broadening the reach of|
| |the stimulus. |
| | |
| |Collaborative partnership/alliance approach would involve procuring a single contractor |
| |via a competitive process to deliver all projects. Costs and overheads are reimbursed to |
| |the contractor with a pain/gain share based on performance against pre-agreed project cost|
| |estimates. This approach is unlikely to be feasible given the diversity of projects. The |
| |recommended strategy would provide for engagement of a broader range of local and smaller |
| |suppliers and therefore better reach for the stimulus. However, it should be noted that a |
| |collaborative partnership/alliance may be used on an individual project basis. |
Document preparation
123. Document preparation and assurance will be provided through additional pre-market approvals referred to in paragraph 122 (Program overview and expedited delivery).
Anticipated schedule
124. Indicative timeframes for projects will be included in pre-market submissions (refer to Program overview and expedited delivery in paragraph 122). Projects funded via the Queensland Government’s 2020-21 COVID Works for Queensland and Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package grants are expected to be completed by June 2021.
Budget
125. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA (including any options):
Expenditure on grant funded projects under this SCP will be subject to of the number and value of projects for which grant funding is received.
126. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract?
Funding has been provided for by Council under Program 8. Funding may be varied during the budget review process to reflect grants received/secured. Where insufficient grant funding is received, that project(s) will not proceed as part of this SCP.
127. Budget line item:
Program: Program 8 – City Governance
Outcome: 8.3 Strong and Responsible Financial Management
Strategy: 8.3.1 Ensuring Council’s Financial Sustainability
Service: 8.3.1.2 Economic Response to COVID-19
Project: Federal Stimulus Partnership
|Projects |2020-21 |2021-22 |2022-23 |2023-24 |
| |$000 |$000 |$000 |$000 |
|Capital |40,000 |60,000 |- |- |
|Expenses |- |- |- |- |
|Revenue |40,000 |60,000 |- |- |
128. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):
The program will provide for a range of infrastructure at limited cost to Council.
Procurement risk
129. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Funding not provided |Medium |- If sufficient grant funding is not provided for a |Council |
| | |project(s), that project(s) will not proceed as part | |
| | |of this SCP. | |
|Projects not completed in time or |Medium |- Expedited procurement through high-level SCP setting|Council and |
|within funding requirements | |the strategy for the program. |contractor |
|Project, procurement and contract |Medium |- Procure additional project, procurement and contract|Council and |
|management resources unable to meet| |management support (where required) to enable |contractor |
|demand of additional projects | |effective delivery. Some lead time may be required to | |
| | |bring resources up to speed. | |
|COVID-19 impacts on supply chain |Medium |- Projects being procured separately will assist with |Council and |
|and delivery timeframes | |delay management. |contractor |
|Risk of business |Medium |- Evaluation of financial viability of tendering |Council and |
|discontinuity/failure | |suppliers. |contractor |
|Poor contractor |Low |- Contracts awarded to multiple suppliers. |Council |
|performance/insufficient market | |- Monitoring of supplier capacity (number of projects | |
|capacity | |being delivered by the same supplier). | |
|Ensuring value for money is |Low |- Projects will be procured using Council’s |Council |
|achieved for expenditure of public | |procurement methodologies and employing competitive | |
|funds | |processes. | |
| | |- Project requirements clearly defined. | |
130. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
No
Tender evaluation
131. Evaluation Team/Specialist Advisors to the Evaluation Team:
The evaluation team and any advisors will be determined for the procurement of each project (refer to Program overview and expedited delivery in paragraph 122).
132. Evaluation criteria:
The evaluation criteria will be determined for the procurement of each project (refer to Program overview and expedited delivery in paragraph 122). In view of the objective to provide stimulus, a strong emphasis will be placed on local benefits. This is also a grant requirement.
133. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
The shortlisting approach will be determined for the procurement of each project (refer to Program overview and expedited delivery in paragraph 122). Typically, this can involve an initial shortlist based on the non-price weighted score, further shortlists (if required) based on the value for money (VFM) score, and an ability to remove suppliers from a shortlist where they are considered to be high risk or not the most advantageous for Council.
(b) Value for money method:
Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is the non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
134. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed at the meeting of 27 July 2020.
135. DECISION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE BRISBANE COVID-19 INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM WILL DELIVER EXPEDITED PROJECTS FOR BRISBANE, FUNDED BY A RANGE OF GRANTS (FROM ENTITIES SUCH AS THE COUNCIL OF CAPITAL CITY LORD MAYORS, AND THE QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS), PROVIDING ECONOMIC STIMULUS TO SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY FROM COVID-19.
NOTED
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona HAMMOND, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually considered by the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, be noted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity now at our first meeting back, to say thank you very much to the hardworking officers in City Planning and Economic Development that I know have been working very, very long hours to make sure that they are addressing any of these economic recovery initiatives that we can introduce to make sure that we are supporting the people of Brisbane and the building and construction industry, small to medium enterprises, as we go through these absolutely unseen before circumstances in this pandemic.
I know I spoke earlier today in Question Time and in Committee this morning about what Development Services are doing with some of the new initiatives, and I know the Economic Development team have been doing a lot of hard work under the guidance of Councillor Adam ALLAN through the Economic Recovery taskforce as well.
I'm very proud of how well they are engaging and getting ready to meet all of these challenges head on. I hope that Councillors in the Chambers too are seeing that the Development Services' managers are out there and being responsive to their needs in the ward office as well, to make sure that we can unblock any of the issues that we may have and keep this industry going to support everybody across the city as well.
Before I get to the committee petition that we have before us today, I just wanted to make a few comments around a suspension of standing orders that was put forward earlier today by the Councillor for Tennyson around the Francis Street outlook at Corinda.
So what we're talking about here is a new house on a low-density residential house block that adjoins a state heritage-listed Francis outlook. Let me make that clear again: this is a low-density residential block. There is two of them and the application before us at the moment is for one of them—one of them which actually had a house on it only just 10 years ago.
So the application that has come through caters for a single house to be built, which is what obviously is acceptable on this site. What was originally lodged was not acceptable and the Council officers made it very clear to them that it was not what we are expecting, but there's been many changes made since it was originally lodged. I don't think the Councillor for Tennyson has been 100% accurate with her residents when it comes to what is actually being proposed now with the changes.
Some of the concern I've seen for residents—who've been talking about three-storey buildings and four houses on these blocks and encroaching into the State heritage-listed park, which is absolutely not the reality here. As we hear time and time again from Councillor JOHNSTON, through you, Mr Chair, the reality and what is happening on the ground are fit to suit what suits her argument as well.
We've seen changes in this house. It is below the 9.5 metres, which means instantly it is complying with the planning scheme. It is not a three-storey house. There has been changes on the height, on the side setbacks, making sure that they decrease the impact on the heritage-listed outlook. They've reduced the scale of the garage, so it won't be visible.
I know that some of the residents obviously don't want this vacant block of land actually developed, but the reality is there was a house there just 10 years ago. They've just forgotten that it is actually a housing residential site.
We have referred this to SARA (State Assessment Referral Agency) as the State Government needs to assess this because it does adjoin a State heritage site. We sent to them the original plan, which was unacceptable to us, and they had no issues. So we'll be sending it back to them now with the changes that have since been mentioned.
On top of the changes, we are still talking to the applicants to make sure that they respect the traditional building character within this area, looking at pitched rooves and different materials et cetera, as Councillor JOHNSTON I think mentioned earlier today, but the reality is the State Government has legislated for us to cater for 386,000 new residents by 2041. We need to accommodate for this growth. This is a low-density residential housing block and building houses on this zone helps us meet the target.
I would also like to clarify something else Councillor JOHNSTON said: that she has made it clear she opposes this application. That is absolutely incorrect. We have one email from the Tennyson Ward office which says: the aspect of the hoseu—which I presume is house but we know Councillor JOHNSTON's not particular on the details—the aspects of the house should be revised to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the traditional character area and the heritage-listed park.
I can say tick and tick, but that is not in any way a Councillor who says she's opposing that application. So truth and reality two very different things from the Councillor for Tennyson.
Before us today we have a petition requesting Council to reject the proposed development of 89 Priestdale Road, Eight Mile Plains. It had 107 signatures wanting Council to reject the development application. The land was originally rural zoned, but in May 2018 the approval was given to change it to a low-impact zoning, including a subdivision of one into two lots.
What we are assessing at the moment in Council is an application for 26 tenancies in a warehouse on this site. We issued a further advice letter on 6 July, in particular around safe site access, landscaping and site boundaries around this application. As I said, it's still being assessed.
The points that were brought up that I would like to address for Councillor COOK, through you, Mr Chair, today around the Eight Mile Plains Gateway neighbourhood plan and the petition that we see here today, a community planning team was established. A draft neighbourhood plan is currently being drafted for consultation.
Councillor COOK, through you, Mr Chair, queried about whether petitions against the previous applications or during assessment times were considered by Council. I just would like to clarify that any petitions that actually regard—regarding a development application, which go through in the public notification timeframe—so if they come to Council in the actual dates of the formal public consultation, CCLO officers will send them straight to Development Services so they can be included as formal submissions, rather than going through the petition process.
Whereas petitions like the one we're seeing here today, are received outside the public notification period. They go through the usual petition process, but as I mentioned this morning, they are still used for consideration by the Council officers, just without the appeal rights of the formal submission period.
So the submission period for this application was actually 17th to the 20th October in 2017. So we had two petitions that were received outside this period and they actually did come through Council in October 2017. So I think that probably clarifies the questions I notice Councillor COOK, through you, Mr Chair—that were asked in committee today. Thank you.
The one we have here today obviously also outside the formal submissions periods but will absolutely be taken into account by the Council officers because we are still in the assessment process. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS do you wish to reply? I will now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REJECT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 89 PRIESTDALE ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A005418564)
CA20/418021
19/2020-21
1. A petition from residents, requesting Council reject the proposed development application for 89 Priestdale Road, Eight Mile Plains (application reference A005418564), was received during the Election Recess 2020.
2. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
3. The petition contains 107 signatures.
4. The petitioners’ concerns include:
- the potential for land at 101 Priestdale Road, Eight Mile Plains, to be land locked and without lawful access
- the proposal’s inconsistency with Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and the policy direction contained within the Strategic Framework
- visual impacts of site clearing, site access, building design, materials and construction
- traffic impacts on the surrounding road network
- potential risks from dangerous goods storage
- noise impacts from operations running 24 hours, seven days a week
- inconsistency with mapped environmental values on the site
- inconsistency with the draft Eight Mile Plains Gateway neighbourhood plan (the neighbourhood plan) and Council’s Brisbane’s Future Blueprint.
5. The site is located within the Rural zone under City Plan and is subject to the Kuraby neighbourhood plan, but not within a precinct. The site has a total area of 6,176 m2 and the local area consists of a range of established and approved land uses, including a service station, community facilities (places of worship and childcare centre), offices and dwelling houses. Building heights within the locality range from one to three storeys.
6. On 21 May 2018, Council’s delegate approved a development application for a Preliminary Approval under section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for a Material change of use for Low impact industry, Reconfiguration of a lot (one into two lots) and an Access easement (application reference A004686217). This development approval varies City Plan, permitting future development applications lodged on this site to be assessed under the provisions of the Low impact industry zone.
7. The development application is subject to an impact assessment, and therefore, the applicant was required to undertake public notification in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for 30 business days. Public notification was carried out from 7 September 2017 to 20 October 2017, with Council receiving nine submissions. However, none of the submissions were properly made. All matters raised by submitters were still carefully considered by Council officers as part of the assessment process.
8. On 25 March 2020, a development application was lodged over the site for a Material change of use for a Warehouse (26 tenancies). Council’s assessment began on 27 March 2020 when the application was properly made. The application was referred to the Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation as the site is located within 25 metres of a State controlled road. The Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation’s State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) is awaiting information from the applicant before responding. Therefore, Council has not received a final concurrence agency response from SARA.
9. Council issued an Information Request to the applicant on 24 April 2020. Council requested additional information about site stormwater discharge and management, safe site access and manoeuvring requirements, ecological features within a mapped waterway corridor, proposed hours of operation, dangerous goods storage and bushfire assessment. The applicant provided a response to these matters on 28 May 2020.
10. Council issued a Further Advice letter to the applicant on 6 July 2020 requesting additional information on safe site access for adjoining properties and landscaping to site boundaries. A response has not yet been received.
11. As the neighbourhood plan is yet to be completed, any current development application in the plan area will be considered against the existing provisions outlined in City Plan through the development assessment process.
12. A Community Planning Team (CPT) was established as one of the community engagement opportunities for the neighbourhood plan project and met three times in 2019. The CPT included 20 people who were selected based on an expression of interest process. The CPT does not have any decision-making ability and is one of many inputs into the neighbourhood planning process, along with background research, technical studies, community surveys and community feedback. CPT members come from a broad range of professions including a scientist, academic, community development worker and retiree. Council is unaware of a developer being a part of the CPT.
13. Council continues to regard Priestdale Road as the current lawful point of entry to the site and would remain the primary access for future development. However, as Priestdale Road is within 25 metres of a State-controlled road, a referral to SARA would be required for any future development application and SARA may impose conditions where a future land use impacts on a State-controlled road.
14. The application is currently being assessed by officers in Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016.
Consultation
15. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
16. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
17. DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft response
Petition Reference: CA20/418021
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reject the proposed development application at 89 Priestdale Road, Eight Mile Plains (application reference A005418564).
Council notes the concerns raised in the petition, including:
- the potential for land at 101 Priestdale Road, Eight Mile Plains, to be land locked and without lawful access
- the proposal’s inconsistency with Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and the policy direction contained within the Strategic Framework
- visual impacts of site clearing, site access, building design, materials and construction
- traffic impacts on the surrounding road network
- potential risks from dangerous goods storage
- noise impacts from operations running 24 hours, seven days a week
- inconsistency with mapped environmental values on the site
- inconsistency with the draft Eight Mile Plains Gateway neighbourhood plan (the neighbourhood plan) and Council’s Brisbane’s Future Blueprint.
The site is located within the Rural zone under City Plan and is subject to the Kuraby neighbourhood plan, but not within a precinct. The site has a total area of 6,176 m2 and the local area consists of a range of established and approved land uses, including a service station, community facilities (places of worship and childcare centre), offices and dwelling houses. Building heights within the locality range from one to three storeys.
On 21 May 2018, Council’s delegate approved a development application for a Preliminary Approval under section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for a Material change of use for Low impact industry, Reconfiguration of a lot (one into two lots) and an Access easement (application reference A004686217). This development approval varies City Plan, permitting future development applications lodged on this site to be assessed under the provisions of the Low impact industry zone.
The development application is subject to an impact assessment, and therefore, the applicant was required to undertake public notification in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for 30 business days. Public notification was carried out from 7 September 2017 to 20 October 2017, with Council receiving nine submissions. However, none of the submissions were properly made. All matters raised by submitters were still carefully considered by Council officers as part of the assessment process.
On 25 March 2020, a development application was lodged over the site for a Material change of use for a Warehouse (26 tenancies). Council’s assessment began on 27 March 2020 when the application was properly made. The application was referred to the Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation as the site is located within 25 metres of a State-controlled road. The Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation’s State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) is awaiting information from the applicant before responding. Therefore, Council has not received a final concurrence agency response from SARA.
Council issued an Information Request to the applicant on 24 April 2020. Council requested additional information about site stormwater discharge and management, safe site access and manoeuvring requirements, ecological features within a mapped waterway corridor, proposed hours of operation, dangerous goods storage and bushfire assessment. The applicant provided a response to these matters on 28 May 2020.
Council issued a Further Advice letter to the applicant on 6 July 2020 requesting additional information on safe site access for adjoining properties and landscaping to site boundaries. A response has not yet been received.
As the neighbourhood plan is yet to be completed, any current development application in the plan area will be considered against the existing provisions outlined in City Plan through the development assessment process.
A Community Planning Team (CPT) was established as one of the community engagement opportunities for the neighbourhood plan project and met three times in 2019. The CPT included 20 people who were selected based on an expression of interest process. The CPT does not have any decision-making ability and is one of many inputs into the neighbourhood planning process, along with background research, technical studies, community surveys and community feedback. CPT members come from a broad range of professions including a scientist, academic, community development worker and retiree. Council is unaware of a developer being a part of the CPT.
Council continues to regard Priestdale Road as the current lawful point of entry to the site and would remain the primary access for future development. However, as Priestdale Road is within 25 metres of a State-controlled road, a referral to SARA would be required for any future development application and SARA may impose conditions where a future land use impacts on a State-controlled road.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
The application is currently being assessed by officers in Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Brendan Gillham, Team Manager, Planning Services South, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 5958.
NOTED
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Peter MATIC, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually considered by the Infrastructure Committee, be noted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Just briefly, Mr Chair, and thank you. A lot of the points have been raised already during debate today about the need to focus in on COVID-19 responses. That certainly was a focus of the last budget and I think we're all charged with getting on with the job of doing those things and allowing contractors and workers to get on with the job, employing people, making sure that there's a pipeline of work. That's certainly what's happening with the infrastructure division.
As you'll all be aware, we announced an investment of over $800 million in roads and road improvements in the last budget, including road and intersection upgrade projects, road resurfacing, kerb and channel, sign and line-marking, all maintenance and related work to help improve the safety of our road network. The monies that are available through Federal and State grants, as have been discussed already in the course of the debate today, are really important for us to help us even further turbo-charge the work that we're committed to doing already. I'm very pleased to see that we are supporting it.
Mr Chair, there were five petitions that are provided there for information purposes and I'll leave the debate at that point.
Chair: Further speakers?
I see no—Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, sorry I was just waiting to see if any other Councillors wanted to speak. I just wanted to speak on one of those petitions; I've got it here as Petition A, that's requesting Council reduce the speed limit on Simpsons and Chadwick Roads, Bardon from 60 kilometres to 50 kilometres. Our concern with this particular petition is the sheer number of residents who have signed this petition; seems like a very reasonable request to reduce the speed in that particular location, particular for bike users.
Unfortunately, the response to this petition just kicks it down the road. It basically says, we will review what we're doing here, rather than actually respond to petitioners. We would actually like to see the administration make some decisions and particularly make some decisions in relation to this. We believe these residents should be listened to, that the reduction in the speed limit should occur on these roads to make it safer for everyone.
In short, Mr Chair, and for the Chamber, we would like to see the Administration make some decisions and to reduce the speed limit on this particular section of road to make it safer for users. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
I—Councillor CASSIDY.
Seriatim - Clause A
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON SIMPSONS AND CHISWICK ROADS, |
|BARDON, FROM 60 KM/H TO 50 KM/H, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. It's actually Chiswick Road, Councillor GRIFFITHS, through you, Mr Chair, but good to see you taking an interest in areas outside your area in the city. However, as you're aware, the process is the same for all these petitions that we receive in relation to speed reductions, that they have to go through a process. We can do a traffic count, it then goes to a Speed Management Committee that does involve the transport—Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police Service and Council, based on the—based on their recommendations, a decision is made.
So, as I've said before many times in the past and will continue to say, that Council doesn't have the capacity to unilaterally declare a reduction in the speed limit without taking it through that process. If you want to talk to your colleagues in William Street about changing the process, please feel free to do so but otherwise, we follow the process that's adopted, which we're obliged to do, to follow the processes outlined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices and that specifies the process that we go through.
Unfortunately, I can't unilaterally wave a magic wand and make those changes based on what residents ask for. We put it through the process that's gone through here, that is to undertake a speed count and to see what traffic engineers come back with when it goes to them for their consideration.
Chair: Thank you, I'll now put item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause A was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Kara COOK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Clauses B, C, D and F put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clauses B, C, D and F was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON SIMPSONS AND CHISWICK ROADS, BARDON, FROM 60 KM/H TO 50 KM/H
CA20/384062
20/2020-21
1. A petition requesting Council reduce the speed limit on Simpsons and Chiswick Roads, Bardon, from 60 km/h to 50 km/h, was received during the Election Recess 2020.
2. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
3. The petition contains 222 signatures. Of the petitioners, 150 live in Bardon, 70 live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane and two live outside the City of Brisbane.
4. The petitioners are requesting the speed limit be reduced to increase pedestrian safety around Bardon State School and Bardon Community Kindergarten which are located along the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor. St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School is also near the corridor. Other reasons to reduce the speed limit include a narrow section of Simpsons Road, between Chiswick Road and MacGregor Terrace, which includes two low-speed bends, and a section of guard rail near Greer Street.
5. Simpsons and Chiswick Roads, between Sir Samuel Griffith Drive and MacGregor Terrace, function as suburban roads in Council’s road hierarchy. Suburban roads connect arterial routes in and around suburbs and form an important link in the public transport and inter-suburban freight network with speed limits of up to 80 km/h. Council bus routes operate along this road corridor and the posted speed limit is 60 km/h. Simpsons Road, between Sir Samuel Griffith Drive and Bardon Esplanade, presently has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
6. A review of the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor identifies a 40 km/h school zone on Simpsons Road outside Bardon State School. The school zone operates on school days between 7am - 9am and 2pm - 4pm in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). Signs identifying the start of the school zone include flashing warning lights that trigger during operating times to enhance their visibility to motorists. School zone pavement markings are also installed on Simpsons Road on both approaches to the school zone. In addition, a zebra crossing is located within the school zone and this is supervised during school zone hours. To further promote road safety through the school zone, a Speed Awareness Monitor (SAM) is installed on Simpsons Road, operating within school zone times for eastbound motorists.
7. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013. The SAM is scheduled to remain within the school zone outside Bardon State School until the next rotation of SAM signs between July and September 2020.
8. In relation to Chiswick Road outside the kindergarten, under the Queensland Government’s School Zone guidelines, school zones cannot be installed outside childcare centres or kindergartens unless they adjoin a school. As such, there is no school zone installed at this location and Council is unable to unilaterally implement one. It is also noted that Cecil Road, the road on which St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School is located, has a posted speed limit of 40 km/h at all times and therefore does not require a 40 km/h school zone to be installed.
9. It is recognised that Simpsons and Chiswick Roads, between Sir Samuel Griffith Drive and MacGregor Terrace, also function as a local bicycle route within Council’s Bicycle network overlay. Local bicycle routes perform a supporting function, connecting riders to trunk bicycle routes and local destinations. However, it is noted that because of their proximity to Mt Coot-tha, these roads have a higher demand for recreational bicycle trips during early hours on weekdays and on weekends. Therefore, the classification of this route is being reconsidered as part of Council’s review of the active transport network plan, which is assessing key bicycle corridors to identify opportunities for improving network connectivity and safety.
10. The petitioners’ request to lower the speed limit on the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the MUTCD. This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland.
11. In determining appropriate speed limits, consideration is given to a wide range of road attributes including function, alignment, carriageway width, roadside hazards, land use, intersection density, driveway access density and traffic volume. Analysis of the existing traffic speed profile is also conducted to ensure that the speed limit is representative of the general perception of a reasonable travel speed on a specific section of road or network of roads.
12. Roads identified as potentially suitable for speed limit reviews are then subject to a formal process which considers the road’s function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, environmental characteristics and crash data. Where the review supports a change to the posted speed, the proposal is then presented to the Speed Management Committee (SMC) for a decision. The SMC has representatives from the Queensland Police Service (QPS), TMR and Council.
13. Council typically evaluates these types of requests by utilising either existing traffic surveys or by undertaking new traffic surveys as required. As the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor does not have current traffic survey data, a new survey will be required to determine if any changes are warranted. Surveys will be arranged at the earliest opportunity and once completed, an assessment of the results will be undertaken to determine if any traffic management measures are warranted.
14. The petitioners are also encouraged to raise any concerns they have with speeding along the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor directly with the QPS via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
Consultation
15. Councillor Peter Matic, Councillor for Paddington Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
16. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
17. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 13 July 2020.
18. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/384062
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reduce the speed limit on Simpsons and Chiswick Roads, Bardon, from 60 km/h to 50 km/h.
A review of the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor identifies a 40 km/h school zone on Simpsons Road outside Bardon State School. The school zone operates on school days between 7am - 9am and 2pm - 4pm in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Signs identifying the start of the school zone include flashing warning lights that trigger during its operating times, to enhance their visibility to motorists. School zone pavement markings are also installed on Simpsons Road on both approaches to the school zone. In addition, a zebra crossing is located within the school zone and this is supervised during school zone hours. To further promote road safety through the school zone, a Speed Awareness Monitor (SAM) installed on Simpsons Road, operating within school zone times for eastbound motorists.
SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013. The SAM is scheduled to remain within the school zone outside Bardon State School until the next rotation of SAM signs between July and September 2020.
In relation to Chiswick Road outside the kindergarten, under the Queensland Government’s School Zones guidelines, school zones cannot be installed outside child care centres or kindergartens unless they adjoin a school. As such, there is no school zone installed at this location and Council is unable to unilaterally implement one. It is also noted that Cecil Road, the road on which St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School is located, has a posted speed limit of 40 km/h at all times and therefore does not require a 40 km/h school zone to be installed.
It is recognised that Simpsons and Chiswick Roads, between Sir Samuel Griffith Drive and MacGregor Terrace, also function as a local bicycle route within Council’s Bicycle network overlay. Local bicycle routes perform a supporting function, connecting riders to trunk bicycle routes and local destinations. However, it is noted that because of their proximity to Mt Coot-tha, these roads have a higher demand for recreational bicycle trips during early hours on weekdays and on weekends. Therefore, the classification of this route is being reconsidered as part of Council’s review of the active transport network plan, which is assessing key bicycle corridors to identify opportunities for improving network connectivity and safety.
The petitioners’ request to lower the speed limit on the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the MUTCD, a document prepared by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across the entire State of Queensland.
In determining appropriate speed limits, consideration is given to a wide range of road attributes including function, alignment, carriageway width, roadside hazards, land use, intersection density, driveway access density and traffic volume. Analysis of the existing traffic speed profile is also conducted to ensure that the speed limit is representative of the general perception of a reasonable travel speed on a specific section of road or network of roads.
Roads identified as potentially suitable for speed limit reviews are then subject to a formal process which considers the road’s function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, environmental characteristics and crash data. Where the review supports a change to the posted speed, the proposal is then presented to the Speed Management Committee (SMC) for a decision. The SMC has representatives from the Queensland Police Service (QPS), TMR and Council.
Council typically evaluates these types of requests by utilising either existing traffic surveys or by undertaking new traffic surveys as required. As the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor does not have current traffic survey data, a new survey will be required to determine if any changes are warranted. Surveys will be arranged at the earliest opportunity and once completed; an assessment of the results will be undertaken to determine if any traffic management measures are warranted.
You are also encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding along the Simpsons and Chiswick Roads corridor directly with the QPS via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Michael Denman, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Network Operations - North, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0985.
NOTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING A ZEBRA CROSSING ON WOOGAROO STREET, ELLEN GROVE, CROSSING FROM MILAN STREET, AND A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO GRAND AVENUE, FOREST LAKE
CA20/434381
21/2020-21
19. A petition requesting a zebra crossing on Woogaroo Street, Ellen Grove, crossing from Milan Street, and a pedestrian walkway to Grand Avenue, Forest Lake, was received during the Election Recess 2020.
20. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
21. The petition contains six signatures. All of the petitioners live in the City of Brisbane.
22. Woogaroo Street has a 60 km/h speed limit and is a suburban road in Council’s road hierarchy. Suburban roads connect arterial routes in and around suburbs and form important links in the public transport and inter-suburban freight network. Grand Avenue is a district road facilitating the movement of people and goods within and through the suburb including bus and heavy vehicle usage. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
23. The petitioners’ request to install a pedestrian crossing on Woogaroo Street has been noted. When considering a location for a pedestrian facility, Council’s primary focus is for the safety of pedestrians while maintaining efficient traffic movement on the road network. In order to achieve the best solution, an assessment of individual environments should be conducted using the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a document prepared by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, in conjunction with Australian Standard (AS) 1742. 10-2009.
24. In order to install a zebra crossing, one of the selection criteria requires the crossing to be used regularly throughout the day and it cannot be installed on roads with a speed limit greater than 50km/h. It is noted that Woogaroo Street has a speed limit of 60 km/h and as such, a zebra crossing facility cannot be installed on this street at this time.
25. As a zebra crossing is unable to be installed, consideration has been given to providing a pedestrian refuge island. Pedestrian refuge islands minimise the crossing distance for pedestrians by providing a safe refuge in the middle of the road, and allow pedestrians to cross only one direction of traffic at a time. While pedestrians can occasionally be delayed at these crossing points, in general, there are sufficient gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross with minimal delay.
26. There is a high demand for pedestrian crossing facilities and other local street improvements throughout Brisbane. That is why all requests have to be prioritised to ensure Council’s resources are directed to streets and areas most in need of such traffic management works and those that offer the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity to the wider community.
27. Accordingly, it is recommended that Woogaroo Street be listed for future funding for the installation of a pedestrian refuge island or other similar crossing facility. Installation and design will be subject to a priority assessment against other competing citywide priorities.
28. The petitioners’ request for a footpath on Woogaroo Street has been noted. The A/Regional Coordinator Civil Engineering, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, inspected Woogaroo Street, Ellen Grove, to determine the suitability of installing a new footpath from Milan Street to Grand Avenue.
29. During the site visit, it was noted that a path already exists on the eastern side of Woogaroo Street for its entire length, however, on the western side the existing footpath only extends from Sienna Street to Grand Avenue.
30. It was determined that the missing section of footpath on the western side of Woogaroo Street, between Milan and Sienna Streets, should be considered for installation.
31. Each year local Councillors decide which new footpath projects in their ward are funded from their Suburban Enhancement Fund, following consultation with adjacent property owners. In the 2019-20 financial year, $14.6 million has been distributed evenly between each ward to enable delivery of ward-focused projects relating to pedestrian infrastructure, parks, road reserve and community facility improvements.
32. The request to extend the footpath in Woogaroo Street, between Milan and Sienna Streets, Ellen Grove, has been forwarded to Councillor Charles Strunk, Councillor for Forest Lake Ward, for his consideration and future prioritisation.
Consultation
33. Councillor Charles Strunk, Councillor for Forest Lake Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
34. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
35. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 13 July 2020.
36. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft response
Petition Reference: CA20/434381
Thank you for your petition requesting a zebra crossing on Woogaroo Street, Ellen Grove, crossing from Milan Street, and a pedestrian walkway to Grand Avenue, Forest Lake.
Your request to install a pedestrian crossing on Woogaroo Street has been noted. When considering a location for a pedestrian facility, Council’s primary focus is for the safety of pedestrians while maintaining efficient traffic movement on the road network. In order to achieve the best solution, an assessment of individual environments should be conducted using the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a document prepared by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, in conjunction with Australian Standard (AS) 1742. 10-2009.
In order to install a zebra crossing, one of the selection criteria requires the crossing to be used regularly throughout the day and it cannot be installed on roads with a speed limit greater than 50km/h. It is noted that Woogaroo Street has a speed limit of 60 km/h and as such, a zebra crossing facility cannot be installed on this street at this time.
As a zebra crossing is unable to be installed, consideration has been given to providing a pedestrian refuge island. Pedestrian refuge islands minimise the crossing distance for pedestrians by providing a safe refuge in the middle of the road, and allow pedestrians to cross only one direction of traffic at a time. While pedestrians can occasionally be delayed at these crossing points, in general, there are sufficient gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross with minimal delay.
There is a high demand for pedestrian crossing facilities and other local street improvements throughout Brisbane. That is why all requests have to be prioritised to ensure Council’s resources are directed to streets and areas most in need of such traffic management works and those that offer the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity to the wider community.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Woogaroo Street be listed for future funding for the installation of a pedestrian refuge island or other similar crossing facility. Installation and design will be subject to a priority assessment against other competing citywide priorities.
Your request for a footpath on Woogaroo Street has been noted. The A/Regional Coordinator Civil Engineering, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, inspected Woogaroo Street, Ellen Grove, to determine the suitability of installing a new footpath from Milan Street to Grand Avenue.
During the site visit, it was noted that a path already exists on the eastern side of Woogaroo Street for its entire length however, on the western side the existing footpath only extends from Sienna Street to Grand Avenue.
It was determined that the missing section of footpath on the western side of Woogaroo Street, between Milan and Sienna Streets, should be considered for installation.
Each year local Councillors decide which new footpath projects in their ward are funded from their Suburban Enhancement Fund, following consultation with adjacent property owners. In the 2019-20 financial year, $14.6 million has been distributed evenly between each ward to enable delivery of ward-focused projects relating to pedestrian infrastructure, parks, road reserve and community facility improvements.
The request to extend the footpath in Woogaroo Street, between Milan and Sienna Streets, Ellen Grove, has been forwarded to Councillor Charles Strunk, Councillor for Forest Lake Ward, for his consideration and future prioritisation.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Network Operations - South, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 1178.
NOTED
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RECONSIDER THE DESIGN OPTIONS PROPOSED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (LATM) TREATMENTS IN STURT STREET, KEDRON, AND INTERSECTING STREETS
CA20/446030
22/2020-21
37. A petition requesting Council reconsider the design options proposed for the installation of Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) treatments in Sturt Street, Kedron, and intersecting streets, was received during the Election Recess 2020.
38. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
39. The petition contains a total of 14 signatures from residents of Northgate Ward.
40. The petitioners request Council:
- cease construction until consultation has occurred
- provide details of traffic impact studies undertaken for the project
- provide a detailed plan for the proposed design
- provide details about the decision makers and their rights to appeal the decision
- revert the design to the original plan including areas of landscaping.
41. The Sturt Street precinct in Kedron was identified as a priority location for traffic calming measures in response to concerns raised by the local community about pedestrian and motorist safety. The locations of traffic management devices have been determined to effectively reduce vehicle speed, promote clearer driving paths, improve traffic flow, provide safe crossing facilities for pedestrians, and reduce the amount of non-local traffic using the area. They have also been selected in consideration of existing traffic calming treatments, road gradients and road widths, and location of driveways and intersections.
42. In relation to pedestrian facilities at the intersection, a traffic study was undertaken at the intersection in June 2019 which identified very few pedestrians cross at this location. The survey also identified that the largest number of younger and more vulnerable pedestrians crossed Tenth Avenue on the western side of Sturt Street, where a new crossing facility has been proposed. Sturt Street is only 7.5 metres wide, which means there is insufficient road width to provide a pedestrian refuge facility. While no formal crossing is provided on Sturt Street, constraining the intersection through the construction of traffic islands will slow the speed of turning vehicles and provide pedestrians with better opportunity to judge gaps in the traffic.
43. Sturt Street and surrounding streets are not currently identified as future cycle routes in the Brisbane City Plan 2014, and the traffic survey conducted in 2019 identified that very few cyclists travelled through the intersection during peak traffic times. While there is a connection point to the Kedron Brook Bikeway, Sturt Street is restricted due to the constraints of the road width which do not allow for on-road cycle facilities or separation of bicycles from road traffic.
44. The key objective of the proposal is to minimise parking loss while not compromising on safety. The extent of the parking restrictions at the intersection was reviewed following the second round of consultation and the design was amended to include a parking bay in each of the two large traffic islands. The yellow ‘No Stopping’ lines are required to ensure safe sight line distance when approaching the intersection for motorists and pedestrians in accordance with the Austroads guidelines.
45. Safety is a priority for Council and was a key consideration through all stages of design and planning. In relation to residents’ safety when reversing out of their driveways, vehicle turning circles were considered as part of the design process to ensure reasonable access and egress from properties is maintained, without compromising on safety. The property at 82 Tenth Avenue, Kedron, is adjacent to one of the large traffic islands, which now includes a space to reverse into when exiting the property.
46. The proposed improvements are being undertaken in response to concerns from local residents that traffic was using local streets to avoid the roundabout at the intersection of Edinburgh Castle Road and Leckie Road, Kedron. Traffic surveys undertaken on Leckie Road in July 2018 recorded approximately 11,000 vehicles using the road each day and feedback from the local community identified concerns with speeding and corner cutting on local streets in this area.
47. The petitioners have suggested the construction of traffic signals at the end of Castle Street and the resurfacing of Fourteenth Avenue. While these works are outside of the scope of this particular project, their comments have been referred to the relevant areas of Council for future consideration.
48. Consultation was a two-stage process conducted over a 12-month period to allow time for feedback to be considered and, where possible, incorporated into the design. The first round of consultation was undertaken from October 2018 to March 2019 across the local area and was used to understand the community sentiment for the proposal and to ensure the proposal addresses the needs and expectations of the local community. The community was invited to have their say via a survey form or by phoning or emailing the project team. Following this stage of consultation, improvements at two locations (Sturt Street and Ninth Avenue, and Sturt Street, Tenth Avenue and Nabiac Street) received community support to progress to the next stage of design and consultation.
49. The second round of consultation focused on the two locations above and was conducted with residents and property owners directly adjacent to the proposed devices. The purpose of the second round of consultation was to seek additional feedback in relation to the design of specific improvements in the area. Residents and property owners were individually consulted with a detailed design plan showing the proposed works near the front of their properties. The proposed speed platforms along Ninth Avenue did not receive support and were not progressed to detailed design. Following this round of consultation, and in response to community feedback, an amendment was made to the design of the scheme to minimise impacts to street parking by providing a parking bay within the traffic islands.
50. During each round of consultation, residents and property owners are encouraged to have their say and provide feedback to Council about the proposal. A dedicated project information phone line and project email address is provided on all correspondence and consultation materials should a member of the community wish to speak directly to the project team to ask questions or seek clarification on the design proposal. All feedback provided during consultation has been considered and, where possible, incorporated into the design.
51. The proposal aims to address safety related concerns raised by the local community. The traffic islands will delineate the road alignment and ensure motorists slow down when turning through the intersection while narrowing the crossing distance for pedestrians making it safer for all road users. As mentioned above, the design has been revised to include low-level plantings within the traffic islands while still maintaining the additional parking bays without jeopardising the sight lines for both pedestrians and motorists. A copy of the updated design plan, as shown in Attachment B (submitted on file), was provided to local residents and property owners on 12 May 2020.
52. Details of traffic impact studies undertaken for the project may be obtained through the Right to Information application process as outlined on Council’s website at brisbane..au.
53. Council will continue with the upgrade with a revised design that incorporates both low-level landscaping and a parking bay within the large islands on Tenth Avenue at the intersection of Sturt Street.
54. The petitioners’ comments about the BMX track at the end of Tenth Avenue and the construction of the National Cricket Campus in the Shaw Park sporting complex have been noted, however, these future developments are outside of the project scope. The petitioners’ comments have been referred to the relevant project team for consideration in relation to access to and from the facility and integration with the broader road network.
Funding
55. Funding has been allocated to the project in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 Budgets under 2.1.2.2 – Improve Local Transport Networks (Project: Local Area Traffic Management – Traffic Calming).
Consultation
56. Councillor Adam Allan, Councillor for Northgate Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
57. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
58. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 13 July 2020.
59. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/446030
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reconsider the design options for the proposed installation of Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) treatments in Sturt Street, Kedron, and intersecting streets. There was also a request for copies of traffic impact studies undertaken for the project and a detailed plan for the design.
The Sturt Street precinct in Kedron was identified as a priority location for traffic calming measures in response to concerns raised by the local community about pedestrian and motorist safety. The locations of traffic management devices have been determined to effectively reduce vehicle speed, promote clearer driving paths, improve traffic flow, provide safe crossing facilities for pedestrians, and reduce the amount of non-local traffic using the area. They have also been selected in consideration of existing traffic calming treatments, road gradients and road widths, and location of driveways and intersections.
In relation to pedestrian facilities at the intersection, a traffic study was undertaken at the intersection in June 2019 which identified very few pedestrians cross at this location. The survey also identified that the largest number of younger and more vulnerable pedestrians crossed Tenth Avenue on the western side of Sturt Street, where a new crossing facility has been proposed. Sturt Street is only 7.5 metres wide, which means there is insufficient road width to provide a pedestrian refuge facility. While no formal crossing is provided on Sturt Street, constraining the intersection through the construction of traffic islands will slow the speed of turning vehicles and provide pedestrians with better opportunity to judge gaps in the traffic.
Sturt Street and surrounding streets are not currently identified as future cycle routes in the Brisbane City Plan 2014, and the traffic survey conducted in 2019 identified very few cyclists travelled through the intersection during peak traffic times. While there is a connection point to the Kedron Brook Bikeway, Sturt Street is restricted due to the constraints of the road width which do not allow for on-road cycle facilities or separation of bicycles from road traffic.
The key objective of the proposal is to minimise parking loss while not compromising on safety. The extent of the parking restrictions at the intersection was reviewed following the second round of consultation and the design was amended to include a parking bay in each of the two large traffic islands. Further, the yellow ‘No Stopping’ lines are required to ensure safe sight line distance when approaching the intersection for motorists and pedestrians in accordance with the Austroads guidelines.
Safety is a priority for Council and was a key consideration through all stages of design and planning. In relation to resident’s safety when reversing out of their driveways, vehicle turning circles were considered as part of the design process to ensure reasonable access and egress from properties is maintained, without compromising on safety. The property at 82 Tenth Avenue, Kedron, is adjacent to one of the large traffic islands, which now includes a space to reverse into when exiting the property.
As mentioned previously, the proposed improvements are being undertaken in response to concerns from local residents, that traffic was using local streets to avoid the roundabout at the intersection of Edinburgh Castle Road and Leckie Road, Kedron. Traffic surveys undertaken on Leckie Road in July 2018 recorded approximately 11,000 vehicles using the road each day, and feedback from the local community identified concerns with speeding and corner cutting on local streets in this area.
Your suggestion to construct traffic signals at the end of Castle Street and resurface Fourteenth Avenue has been noted. While these works are outside of the scope of this particular project, your comments have been referred to the relevant areas of Council for future consideration.
Consultation was a two-stage process conducted over a 12-month period to allow time for feedback to be considered and, where possible, incorporated into the design. The first round of consultation was undertaken from October 2018 to March 2019 across the local area and was used to understand the community sentiment for the proposal and to ensure the proposal addresses the needs and expectations of the local community. The community was invited to have their say via a survey form or by phoning or emailing the project team. Following this stage of consultation, improvements at two locations (Sturt Street and Ninth Avenue, and Sturt Street, Tenth Avenue and Nabiac Street) received community support to progress to the next stage of design and consultation.
The second round of consultation focused on the two intersections above and was conducted with residents and property owners directly adjacent to the proposed devices. The purpose of the second round of consultation was to seek additional feedback in relation to the design of specific improvements in the area. Residents and property owners were individually consulted with a detailed design plan showing the proposed works near the front of their properties. The proposed speed platforms along Ninth Avenue did not receive support and were not progressed to detailed design. Following this round of consultation and in response to community feedback, an amendment was made to the design of the scheme to minimise impacts to street parking by providing a parking bay within the traffic islands.
During each round of consultation, residents and property owners are encouraged to have their say and provide feedback to Council about the proposal. A dedicated project information phone line and project email address is provided on all correspondence and consultation materials should a member of the community wish to speak directly to the project team to ask questions or seek clarification on the design proposal. All feedback provided during consultation has been considered and, where possible, incorporated into the design.
The proposal aims to address safety related concerns raised by the local community. The traffic islands will delineate the road alignment and ensure motorists slow down when turning through the intersection while narrowing the crossing distance for pedestrians making it safer for all road users. As mentioned above, the design has been revised to include low-level plantings within the traffic islands while still maintaining the additional parking bays without jeopardising the sight lines for both pedestrians and motorists. A copy of the updated design plan was provided to local residents and property owners on 12 May 2020.
Details of traffic impact studies undertaken for the project may be obtained through the Right to Information application process as outlined on Council’s website at brisbane..au.
Council will continue with the upgrade with a revised design that incorporates both low level landscaping and a parking bay within the large islands on Tenth Avenue at the intersection of Sturt Street.
Your comments about the BMX track at the end of Tenth Avenue and the construction of the National Cricket Campus in the Shaw Park sporting complex have been noted, however, these future developments are outside of the project scope. Your comments have been referred to the relevant project team for consideration in relation to access to and from the facility and integration with the broader road network.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Graham Nell, Program Director, Civil and Transport, Project Management, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 1962.
Thank you for raising this matter.
NOTED
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT SAFE AND EFFECTIVE PARKING MEASURES, INCLUDING MEASURES TO RESERVE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS; CREATE A SAFE EXIT ONTO MILES PLATTING ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS; AND INSTALL FOOTPATHS FOR RESIDENTS LIVING BETWEEN LONDON STREET AND MILES PLATTING ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS
CA19/1190678
23/2020-21
60. A petition requesting Council implement safe and effective parking measures, including measures to reserve parking for residents; create a safe exit onto Miles Platting Road, Eight Mile Plains; and install footpaths for residents living between London Street and Miles Platting Road, was received during the Summer Recess 2019-20.
61. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
62. The petition contains 81 signatures. Of the petitioners, 77 live within the residential catchment between London Street and Miles Platting Road and the remainder live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane.
63. The petitioners are requesting the implementation of a residential parking permit scheme to ensure residents have access to on-street parking; the creation of a safe exit onto Miles Platting Road for residents within the residential catchment between London Street and Miles Platting Road; and the installation of footpaths along streets within the same area.
64. The area highlighted by the petitioners comprises several residential streets providing access to local properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
65. The petitioners’ request for a residential parking permit scheme has been noted. In June 2014, the former Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk, formed the independent Brisbane Parking Taskforce (the Taskforce) to advise Council how to respond to parking issues and to best manage on-street parking in the future. The Taskforce included representatives from several transport industry stakeholders and reviewed more than 1,100 submissions from residents, schools and businesses.
66. In December 2014, the Taskforce completed their review of these submissions and recommended a number of changes to Council’s policies and practices relating to parking. One of the key recommendations put forward by the Taskforce was for Council to establish criteria for creating new Residential Parking Permit Scheme areas (RPPS) throughout Brisbane to manage parking and residential amenity. RPPS have parking time limits which are signed along the street, and residents (and their visitors) that hold a valid parking permit are exempt from the parking time limits.
67. The following criteria were developed by the Taskforce to assess the suitability for any new RPPS:
- the area under consideration consists of low to medium density residential properties
- the availability of on-street parking spaces is severely limited where more than 80% of parking spaces are occupied
- long-term parking is predominant where more than 60% of available spaces are occupied long-term
- the parking demand is primarily generated by non-local motorists
- Council’s parking complaints register demonstrates a history of parking issues
- there is enough community support for the scheme.
68. Council has investigated the parking demand within this precinct and while there is some parking demand, it does not occupy more than 80% of the street as required in the RPPS guideline. As such, the introduction of a RPPS cannot be considered within this precinct at this time.
69. Where a RPPS is not feasible, Council may consider short-term parking restrictions and marked parking bays which could also help formalise parking within this precinct. The installation of short-term parking restrictions can provide parking opportunities for visitors to the area. However, as these restrictions would not have resident permit exemptions, they would also apply to any residents within the area. With regard to marked parking bays, while they help formalise the available parking spaces, they are marked so that the largest of vehicles can be accommodated. As such, the introduction of marked parking bays may lead to a loss of parking spaces overall but can be an option.
70. Modifying existing parking restrictions can often have mixed levels of support within a community, both for and against. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate a high level of community agreement before implementing any significant changes. As such, Council will undertake consultation regarding the installation of short-term parking restrictions with marked parking bays within the London Street precinct.
71. The petitioners’ request for a safe exit onto Miles Platting Road from the London Street precinct has been noted. Miles Platting Road is classified as a suburban road in Council’s road hierarchy under Brisbane City Plan 2014. These roads have a function of connecting various suburbs and carry large volumes of traffic, including large vehicles such as trucks and semi-trailers.
72. It is acknowledged that accessing Miles Platting Road may be difficult, particularly during peak times. This situation is not uncommon across Brisbane, where lower order roads join higher order roads. Given the configuration of the local road network, the only option to improve access would be via the installation of traffic signals. However, there is a high demand for new traffic infrastructure across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity to the wider community.
73. In order to establish traffic signals, the location must meet the national Austroads engineering guidelines. These guidelines consider factors including traffic conditions, recorded crashes, local area land use and the type of road. Typically, Council only prioritises locations for traffic signals where the roads are higher order roads under its road hierarchy, ranked as district or above, or to address significant safety risks or crash history.
74. Council has reviewed the most recent data from the official Queensland Government crash history for the three intersections, which allow access onto Miles Platting Road from the London Road precinct. Between May 2014 and May 2019, there were no recorded crashes of any kind in the Queensland Government database.
75. Considering the absence of any crash history and that the nearby traffic signals will provide breaks in traffic flow which would allow motorists to exit, Council has no plans to install a signalised intersection onto Miles Platting Road.
76. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has requested ‘Keep Clear’ pavement markings at Miles Platting Road’s intersection with Fraser or Mersey Street. Council has considered this request, however, under the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, ‘Keep Clear’ markings may only be used to allow emergency vehicles access from their depot or station or where queued traffic would create a safety problem elsewhere in the road network. The markings are not to be used primarily to facilitate access and egress to a side street or driveway.
77. Given these criteria, a ‘Keep Clear’ marking at Miles Platting Road’s intersection with Fraser or Mersey Street cannot be supported.
78. Council is currently investigating the installation of a splitter island on Fraser Street with the intersection of Miles Platting Road. This will help slow vehicles entering the precinct as well as provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians.
79. Council officers have also reviewed the petitioners’ request for the installation of concrete footpaths along London, Belar, Meadow, Fraser, Mersey, Liverpool and Manchester Streets.
80. Each Ward Councillor decides which new footpath projects are funded from their Suburban Enhancement Fund, following consultation with adjacent property owners. In the 2019-20 financial year, $14.6 million has been distributed evenly between each Ward to enable delivery of ward-focused projects relating to pedestrian infrastructure, parks, road reserve and community facility improvements.
81. The request for new concrete footpaths in London, Belar, Meadow, Fraser, Mersey, Liverpool and Manchester Streets has been forwarded to Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, for his consideration and action.
Consultation
82. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
83. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
84. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
85. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA19/1190678
Thank you for your petition requesting Council implement safe and effective parking measures, including measures to reserve parking for residents; create a safe exit onto Miles Platting Road, Eight Mile Plains; and install footpaths for residents living between London Street and Miles Platting Road.
Your request for a residential parking permit scheme has been noted. In June 2014, the former Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk, formed the independent Brisbane Parking Taskforce (the Taskforce) to advise Council how to respond to parking issues and to best manage on-street parking in the future. The Taskforce included representatives from several transport industry stakeholders and reviewed more than 1,100 submissions from residents, schools and businesses.
In December 2014, the Taskforce completed their review of these submissions and recommended a number of changes to Council’s policies and practices relating to parking. One of the key recommendations put forward by the Taskforce was for Council to establish criteria for creating new Residential Parking Permit Scheme areas (RPPS) throughout Brisbane to manage parking and residential amenity. RPPS have parking time limits which are signed along the street, and residents (and their visitors) that hold a valid parking permit are exempt from the parking time limits.
The following criteria were developed by the Taskforce to assess the suitability for any new RPPS:
- the area under consideration consists of low to medium density residential properties
- the availability of on-street parking spaces is severely limited where more than 80% of parking spaces are occupied
- long-term parking is predominant where more than 60% of available spaces are occupied long term
- the parking demand is primarily generated by non-local motorists
- Council’s parking complaints register demonstrates a history of parking issues
- there is enough community support for the scheme.
Council has investigated the parking demand within this precinct and while there is some parking demand, it does not occupy more than 80% of the street as required in the RPPS guideline. As such, the introduction of a RPPS cannot be considered within this precinct at this time.
Where a RPPS is not feasible, Council may consider short-term parking restrictions and marked parking bays which could also help formalise parking within this precinct. The installation of short-term parking restrictions can provide parking opportunities for visitors to the area. However, as these restrictions would not have resident permit exemptions, they would also apply to any residents within the area. With regard to marked parking bays, while they help formalise the available parking spaces, they are marked so that the largest of vehicles can be accommodated. As such, the introduction of marked parking bays may lead to a loss of parking spaces overall, but can be an option.
Modifying existing parking restrictions can often have mixed levels of support within a community, both for and against. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate a high level of community agreement before implementing any significant changes. As such, Council will undertake consultation regarding the installation of short-term parking restrictions with marked parking bays within the London Street precinct.
Your request for a safe exit onto Miles Platting Road from the London Street precinct has been noted. Miles Platting Road is classified as a suburban road in Council’s road hierarchy under Brisbane City Plan 2014. These roads have a function of connecting various suburbs and carry large volumes of traffic, including large vehicles such as trucks and semi-trailers.
It is acknowledged that accessing Miles Platting Road may be difficult, particularly during peak times. This situation is not uncommon across Brisbane where lower order roads join higher order roads. Given the configuration of the local road network, the only option to improve access would be via the installation of traffic signals. However, there is a high demand for new traffic infrastructure across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity to the wider community.
In order to establish traffic signals, the location must meet the national Austroads engineering guidelines. These guidelines consider factors including traffic conditions, recorded crashes, local area land use and the type of road. Typically, Council only prioritises locations for traffic signals where the roads are higher order roads under its road hierarchy, ranked as district or above, or to address significant safety risks or crash history.
Council has reviewed the most recent data from the official Queensland Government crash history for the three intersections, which allow access onto Miles Platting Road from the London Road precinct. Between May 2014 and May 2019, there were no recorded crashes of any kind in the Queensland Government database.
Considering the absence of any crash history and that the nearby traffic signals will provide breaks in traffic flow which would allow motorists to exit, Council has no plans to install a signalised intersection onto Miles Platting Road.
Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has requested ‘Keep Clear’ pavement markings at Miles Platting Road’s intersection with Fraser or Mersey Street. Council has considered this request, however, under the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, ‘Keep Clear’ markings may only be used to allow emergency vehicles access from their depot or station or where queued traffic would create a safety problem elsewhere in the road network. The markings are not to be used primarily to facilitate access and egress to a side street or driveway.
Given these criteria, a ‘Keep Clear’ marking at Miles Platting Road’s intersection with Fraser or Mersey Street cannot be supported.
Council is currently investigating the installation of a splitter island on Fraser Street with the intersection of Miles Platting Road. This will help slow vehicles entering the precinct as well as provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians.
Council officers have also reviewed your request for the installation of concrete footpaths along London, Belar, Meadow, Fraser, Mersey, Liverpool and Manchester Streets.
Each Ward Councillor decides which new footpath projects are funded from their Suburban Enhancement Fund, following consultation with adjacent property owners. In the 2019-20 financial year, $14.6 million has been distributed evenly between each Ward to enable delivery of ward-focused projects relating to pedestrian infrastructure, parks, road reserve and community facility improvements.
The request for new concrete footpaths in London, Belar, Meadow, Fraser, Mersey, Liverpool and Manchester Streets has been forwarded to Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, for his consideration and action.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Network Operations - South, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 1178.
Thank you for raising this matter.
NOTED
E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS ABOUT PLANNING SAFER ROADS IN SHERWOOD AND ROCKLEA
CA20/67415
24/2020-21
86. A petition requesting Council speak directly with local residents about planning safer roads in Sherwood and Rocklea, was received during the Summer Recess 2019-20.
87. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
88. The petition contains 31 signatures. All of the petitioners live within the City of Brisbane.
89. The petitioners state there is a lack of infrastructure to support the traffic increases in the area. Oxley and Sherwood Roads are considered to be arterial roads under Council’s road hierarchy, connecting major centres of the city and forming an important link in Brisbane’s bus and freight network. Due to the function of these roads, high volumes of traffic are expected. There are two Council bus routes operating on Oxley and Sherwood Roads. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
90. It is acknowledged that Sherwood Road’s east-west connection is a primary access route to the area for heavy vehicles accessing local destinations, as Oxley Road is constrained to the north and south by low clearance heights from the Ipswich rail line. High vehicle detours are in place in Honour Avenue and Lilly Street for vehicles travelling from the north or south respectively.
91. To plan for future road improvements to the Oxley Road and Sherwood Road corridors, the land required is being preserved through building setbacks from adjoining properties as development occurs. Current long-term planning for both Oxley Road (south of Sherwood Road) and Sherwood Road will provide four lane capacity, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. By dedicating land for road purposes, Council’s long-term road planning allows for upgrade works to be progressed in a manageable way across the city.
92. Council has raised the Oxley Road rail bridge constraint on road traffic with the Queensland Government. Queensland Rail is in the early stages of investigating the merits of a replacement of the rail overbridge, which would include widening of the road.
93. The petitioners’ feedback about bus services on Oxley and Sherwood Roads has been noted. While Council operates bus services, a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads, is responsible for funding and planning bus services.
94. Any consideration to enhance bus services requires an analysis of existing demand levels on bus services in the corridor, as well as taking into consideration other modes of public transport that are available. As rail services are the primary public transport mode within the Oxley and Graceville corridor it is considered that the service level for public transport is sufficiently met.
95. The bus services that operate out of Sherwood depot and service the Oxley and Graceville corridor include routes 104, 106, 598 and 599.
96. With regard to road maintenance, sections of Sherwood Road, outside the Rocklea Markets, have been listed for consideration to be resurfaced as part of Council’s future capital works program. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. The works that get approved have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefitting in relation to the cost.
97. In the interim, road pavement, kerb and channel and drainage repairs on the west-bound lanes, outside the Rocklea Markets including the intersection at the western gate entrance have been scheduled to be completed by the end of June this year.
98. The petitioners’ feedback about development applications has been noted. All development applications submitted to Council are carefully assessed by Council's Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and in accordance with the Planning Act 2016.
99. City Plan ensures that development proposals adequately take account of impacts on local traffic networks, and require applicants to submit a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) should a proposal trigger defined parameters.
100. The Transport, access, parking and servicing planning scheme policy within City Plan includes a guideline specifying the purpose, content and design standards required in the preparation of a TIA, and outlines the scale and type of development proposals that would typically trigger this requirement. It also specifies the requirement that TIAs should be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Queensland.
101. Further, Council is unable to impose development conditions or insist on the inclusion of development outcomes that are outside the scope of those defined in City Plan, and therefore cannot, for example, insist on a double-lane road if such an outcome is not outlined in the planning scheme.
102. Council cannot refuse to assess a development application prior to a full assessment against City Plan irrespective of a proposal’s suitability against these requirements.
103. The petitioners’ request to consult with local residents on any future road changes has been noted. Community consultation is an important part of any Council project, and any project involving upgrades to roads such as Sherwood Road and Oxley Road would be a major infrastructure project. Accordingly, consultation would form part of these upgrades when they are being formally proposed.
Consultation
104. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and neither agrees nor disagrees with the recommendation.
105. Councillor Steve Griffiths, Councillor for Moorooka Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
106. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
107. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
108. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/67415
Thank you for your petition requesting Council speak directly with local residents about planning safer roads in Sherwood and Rocklea.
It is acknowledged that Sherwood Road’s east-west connection is a primary access route to the area for heavy vehicles accessing local destinations, as Oxley Road is constrained to the north and south by low clearance heights from the Ipswich rail line. High vehicle detours are in place in Honour Avenue and Lilly Street for vehicles travelling from the north or south respectively.
To plan for future road improvements to the Oxley Road and Sherwood Road corridors, the land required is being preserved through building setbacks from adjoining properties as development occurs. Current long-term planning for both Oxley Road (south of Sherwood Road) and Sherwood Road will provide four lane capacity, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. By dedicating land for road purposes, Council’s long-term road planning allows for upgrade works to be progressed in a manageable way across the city.
Council has raised the Oxley Road rail bridge constraint on road traffic with the Queensland Government. Queensland Rail is in the early stages of investigating the merits of a replacement of the rail overbridge, which would include widening of the road.
Your feedback about bus services on Oxley and Sherwood Roads has been noted. While Council operates bus services, TransLink, a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads, is responsible for funding and planning bus services.
Any consideration to enhance bus services requires an analysis of existing demand levels on bus services in the corridor, as well as taking into consideration other modes of public transport that are available. As rail services are the primary public transport mode within the Oxley and Graceville corridor it is considered that the service level for public transport is sufficiently met.
Bus services that operate out of Sherwood depot and service the Oxley and Graceville corridor include routes 104, 106, 598 and 599.
With regard to road maintenance, sections of Sherwood Road, outside the Rocklea Markets, have been listed for consideration to be resurfaced as part of Council’s future capital works program. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. The works that get approved have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefitting in relation to the cost.
In the interim, road pavement, kerb and channel and drainage repairs on the west-bound lanes, outside the Rocklea Markets including the intersection at the western gate entrance have been scheduled to be completed by the end of June this year.
Your feedback about development applications has been noted. All development applications submitted to Council are carefully assessed by Council's Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and in accordance with the Planning Act 2016.
City Plan ensures that development proposals adequately take account of impacts on local traffic networks, and require applicants to submit a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) should a proposal trigger defined parameters.
The Transport, access, parking and servicing planning scheme policy within City Plan includes a guideline specifying the purpose, content and design standards required in the preparation of a TIA, and outlines the scale and type of development proposals that would typically trigger this requirement. It also specifies the requirement that TIAs should be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Queensland.
Further, Council is unable to impose development conditions or insist on the inclusion of development outcomes that are outside the scope of those defined in City Plan, and therefore cannot, for example, insist on a double-lane road if such an outcome is not outlined in the planning scheme.
Council cannot refuse to assess a development application prior to a full assessment against City Plan irrespective of a proposal’s suitability against these requirements.
Your request to consult with local residents on any future road changes has been noted. Community consultation is an important part of any Council project, and any project involving upgrades to roads such as Sherwood Road and Oxley Road would be a major infrastructure project. Accordingly, consultation would form part of these upgrades when they are being formally proposed.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Damian Burke, Senior Strategic Transport Planner, Road Network Planning, Project and Program, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 7676.
NOTED
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Tracy DAVIS, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually considered by the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, be noted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair. There were two park naming submissions and a petition, which I'll speak about briefly. The first naming submission was to name a section within Brisbane Corso Park, Yeronga John Walker Place in honour of the late John Walker. In total, Council received three petitions on this matter, requesting a section of parkland within Corso Park, Yeronga be named John Walker Place in honour of his 45 years of service to the community. The three petitions came to Council on 11 February 2020. The local Councillor supported the petitions.
The second is the formal naming of Carter's Rest in Mt Gravatt East, something which the Chamber has discussed before. Council also received two petitions about bike trials in the East Brisbane and Coorparoo areas and for a dirt jump track to be built near Coorparoo skate park.
Council officers have investigated the petitioners' requests and I will continue to work with officers and the community to find ways to give kids in my area with bikes more places to ride. It's not always possible to put bike tracks or jumps in a park and there are many factors to take into account; space, soil and the local creek network as well, so we will be working through them carefully and methodically.
I hope to have some news for my local community about opportunities for skaters, scooter riders and bike riders soon but again, in every park, there are unique factors to take into consideration and we're doing that work right now. I'll leave debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Just briefly on item A, certainly I think John Walker and his family have made a significant contribution to Yeronga over many years. I knew John pretty well, particularly in the last 12 years. He was one of those people who would pop into my office very regularly and talk to me about local issues and I would also see him at Neighbourhood Watch meetings and also the Yeronga District Residents' Association meetings.
Most of his community service, to an extensive range of local community groups, pre-dates my time as the local Councillor. But, he was extremely active in supporting his children through their schooling years, particularly through Yeronga Hyde Road Kindergarten, Yeronga State School, Yeronga High School and he was an active member of the fun parts of life in Yeronga as well, which is the Probus club and the Yeronga Men's Shed.
He certainly made a professional contribution to our community as a pharmacist for many years, as well. His daughter has been instrumental in seeking to have John Walker Place created within the Brisbane Corso reserve. There's a location there where we have a playground and a meeting place and that's not too far from John's home, which was just in the O streets of Yeronga.
So, I've been in touch with her, she's very happy to hear that the naming is progressing and we're just working on some appropriate words for the naming sign, which we will put up in due course. I certainly commend the naming to everybody in the Chamber and this is another recognition of local residents who have made a significant contribution to the Yeronga community within Tennyson Ward.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Seriatim - Clause B
|Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause B, PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CARRARA STREET|
|PARK AT 68 CARRARA AND 8 NURRAN STREETS, MT GRAVATT EAST, AS ‘CARTER’S REST’, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just like to say in relation to items A and C, we support those namings and support those items. However, with item B, and this is on the record and has been on the record all the way along, Carter's Rest, we don't support, and we don't support the naming of this park. Unfortunately, this is a very sad story for this Council.
It's a good story for one Councillor but a very sad story for this Council, in terms of how we've managed and used our bushland funding and more so, the impact that it will have on the purchase of future bushland for sites that actually have wildlife on them. What we do know—the facts we do know is that $6.2 million were put aside—$6.2 million, was put aside to buy bushland on this site and there was no bushland. There was no bushland. It had been cleared of any native trees.
In fact, the only thing from my site visit there that was left were Cocas palms and tennis courts and a couple of houses. So, Council spent $6.2 million on buying three house blocks that were up for development, that were contentious and that were up for development. That land had been allowed to be cleared by this Council and by this Administration, who voted for the laws that allowed clearing of those sites.
So, there was no protection of those sites, there was no clearing of the land there, despite what we hear from the LORD MAYOR and from Councillor ADAMS. But the worst thing about it was that—and I—when we go through Council, Council's own files, the officers' own reports, they actually don't conclude that there was any wildlife on this site.
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: They don't conclude so—
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: I love—I know Councillor GRIFFITHS loves re-reading his words. Naming of a park—of a reserve. That's all this is; the name for a reserve.
Chair: I understand the point of order you're making is relevant. I would—because the Bushland Acquisition Program is explicitly named in paragraph 14, I will allow Councillor GRIFFITHS to proceed.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you and I don't know why the Councillor is so upset about this being named or—pray I do know why she's so upset; 6.2 million reasons why.
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I look forward to that one. The interesting thing here, Mr Chair, is that those $6.2 million being spent on—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order—I'm sorry, Councillor GRIFFITHS, point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor ADAMS hasn't spoken on this matter, so I'm not sure how she can claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: I appreciate that. We've had a long-running generous interpretation of misrepresentation for quite some time.
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, look, and as I was saying before, and it was interesting to listen to the debate earlier tonight and I won't go into that, for the land over on the northside, the reason we can't buy that land, in truth, is because we've spent so much money on buying this land that has no vegetation on it. I think records in the future will prove that to be correct.
Mr Chairman, Carter's Rest, the story or the smoke-screen about Carter dying—a koala that died near the site, not on the site, that supposedly was on the site, it is very sad, and poor old Carter had a sad end.
But what we should be concerned about is the wildlife that is remaining in the city that we aren't protecting; the koalas and the other blocks in the site—in Brisbane that we are ignoring and we are arguing about and not protecting. Because so much money has been spent on this land that had no koalas or no wildlife on it, had no vegetation on it and that sadly, we're using a smoke-screen of calling it Carter's Rest as a way of saying we care for wildlife.
I think it's despicable that the Administration has spent the money this way and I think it's despicable that it means that other areas of Brisbane will miss out on being purchased for the greater good of all residents and how they should see—how they want to see their bushland money well spent and well used in preserving land for wildlife that they can use now, not in 20, 30 or 50 years’ time. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS, your misrepresentation?
Councillor ADAMS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor GRIFFITHS said that I was upset; I'm not upset but my residents are definitely upset with him.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chairman, that's not misrepresentation. It—you've enforced this rule very strongly and I would ask you to direct Councillor ADAMS to ensure that she doesn't abuse the rule.
Chair: I don't think—I thought that her comments were very brief and I think the strict interpretation of misrepresentation and the use of it after speeches has been a feature that has been a quality of the recent time that people have used this, but used it to make a point about what was said during the earlier discussions.
But I will—in reference to the point of order, in reference to your point of order, all Councillors, if ever they use misrepresentation, must keep their comments brief and only to the misrepresentation at hand.
Further speakers?
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Okay. I'll call you at the end of the—at the appropriate time.
Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm not sure—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: —whether Councillor SRI—
Chair: Sorry, is there another point of order?
Councillor ADAMS: Is there an issue?
Chair: Okay, Councillor ADAMS, please proceed.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm not sure if Councillor SRI is thinking I'm going to misrepresent him, because I wasn't going to mention him but that's fine. I am responding to item A and item B that we have before us today. First of all, I would like to support item A as one of the Councillors that were presented with the petition for the naming of John Walker Place by his daughter, Narelle. I'm very happy to see this coming through Council as well.
The late John Walker did do an amazing amount of service to the local community through Neighbourhood Watches and his work with residents throughout Yeronga. He has obviously instilled that work within the community in his family, as Narelle I know from—as P&C President from Wellers Hill State School. She was quite distressed that she didn't get the responses that she was hoping for from the Councillor for Tennyson and Moorooka but I was more than happy to present the petition on her behalf and I'm glad to see that it is here today, as well.
With regards to item B, I hope this is the last time we ever need to speak and listen to the blatant mistruths from Councillor GRIFFITHS around Carter's Rest. I'm not upset about this at all but my residents are extremely upset at Councillor JOHNSTON and Councillor GRIFFITHS and they saw that on their Facebook replies after their last comments in this place.
I'm sure they'll be coming back to them again, because all we hear from Councillor GRIFFITHS is that he repeatedly calls my residents liars, completely calls them liars, over and over again. Over and over again. Liars for the residents who stood beside Rod Harding and Carly Augustin and Corrine McMillan and the woman who ran against Ross Vasta and lost—forgotten her name already, all of them in their red shirts, yelling at me to make sure Council bought this land.
When the LORD MAYOR spoke earlier today about political convenience, the diatribe we just heard from Councillor GRIFFITHS for the tenth time in this place is exactly that. His candidate, Carly Augustin, called on me to do this over and over again and I've got the photos with all of them standing there. But it didn't work when it actually happened and that's the inconvenient truth for Councillor GRIFFITHS. This site that we have here, number one, through you, Mr Chair, to Councillor GRIFFITHS, is not a park and never will be a park.
It is a wildlife reserve. It is closed up, it is replanted and it will be closed so it will not be open to the wildlife—ah, to the wildlife, sorry, to the domestic animals and concerns that the koalas in the area may have.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: There is a large koala population in this area that move through Whites Hill and Toohey Forest and conveniently again, Corrine McMillan was pushing for this in the koala protection that the State Government took so long to actually get back to Council. Of course, then it wasn't politically correct that this had koala protection on it so they removed it.
The only thing left to protect, this pocket of land as a part of the corridor, because the DA was going to be absolute—it was going to be code assessable, there was nothing we could do to protect this pocket of land. This corridor is seeing repeated movement of koalas. If you go into the Mt Gravatt Townhouse group, their Facebook page, beloved of my Mt Gravatt East local areas, there are continually photos of the koalas in that areas. One from as recently as 31 July in Condong Street, which is one block away from this site.
There are so many koalas in this area, it has been recognised by RSPCA and by the Koala Protection Society as being within the triangle of death, no less, for koalas in Brisbane, so a vitally important reserve to be saved for the movement of corridors. We have wildlife awareness monitors on Cavendish Road, on Pine Mountain Road, on Boundary Street, on Creek Road and I'm looking to try and add them into Samuel Street and along Nursery Road, as well. Because that is how prolific the movement is of these beautiful animals through this corridor.
Obviously, my residents are outraged to hear the politics that is played time and time again in this place and the blatant lies that we keep hearing and how they're being called liars, as well. Simply put, they're sick and tired of it. I am so proud to bring this naming today. I just want to say it—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Councillor ADAMS: —one more time—
—it was not $6.2 million—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Excuse me, point of order, Mr Chair?
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you. I'd like to claim to be misrepresented, thank you.
Chair: Yes, noted. Councillor ADAMS—Councillor—
Councillor ADAMS: But when it was not purchased—
Chair: Councillor ADAMS? Can you please—in future, find a more circumspect term from the ones you're using. They're not really appropriate at this point, so please don't—please use the words like mistruths—
Councillor ADAMS: Mistruths, yes, thank you. Thank you. I—yes, so what we hear from Councillor GRIFFITHS, I would just like to actually clarify some of the mistruths that we hear from Councillor GRIFFITHS. The land was not purchased for $6.1 million, it was purchased for $5.2 million with a large parcel that will be sold off—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: —expecting to go for over a million dollars, which will go straight back into the Bushland Acquisition Fund.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Mr Chair, I'd like to claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Yes, noted.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you.
Chair: Please continue, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: If Councillor GRIFFITHS wants to use the over $6 million amount for purchase, he needs to introduce all of those Queensland Government taxes that we need to pay on top of it, which Corrine McMillan probably could have worked on to help her local community as well, but she did not. It is extremely disappointing to see when we finally get a—an outcome for a community, because it's in an LNP Ward and it's not politically convenient, they won't support it.
But as again, as we heard today, if it works for their State guys, then they'll absolutely want us to buy it, as well. This is an important reserve that has been replanted, it is going very, very well with the significant koala habitat trees and fodder for this site. I am looking forward to the day that the trees are large enough for them to actually use this corridor as they come through between Pine Mountain Road, Cavendish Road and over to Nursery Road, to Mt Gravatt Outlook.
I thank the residents for the work they've done and the hard yards they've done, even though the Australian Labor Party have flipped on this from beginning to end and have absolutely not done anything at any level of government or representation to support the local residents in this area. And I've —I commend the petition to the Chamber.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS, you've got two items of misrepresentation.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair. First one is, lies. I don't appreciate being called a liar or being referred to by what I'm saying as lying; it's not, they were facts. The second thing is, it was $6.2 million spent on this when you add the purchase of the land with all Council's on-costs. It was $6.2 million, so it would be good if the Councillor—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Is that all on this report at all?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Chair. On item B, I'll just simply say that I've lost count about the amount of times that we've spoken about this. I suggest through you, Chair, that if the Labor Councillors wish to keep talking about it, they could perhaps go door-knocking in Mt Gravatt East and listen to the residents. I'll simply leave it at that.
Chair: I will now put items A and C.
Clauses A and C put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clauses A and C was declared carried on the voices.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause B was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS and Councillor Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 20 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Jonathan SRI.
NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.
ABSTENTIONS: 1- Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A SECTION OF PARKLAND WITHIN BRISBANE CORSO PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘JOHN WALKER PLACE’, IN HONOUR OF THE LATE JOHN WALKER’S 45 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
161/540/567/199
25/2020-21
1. The Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
2. Council received three petitions requesting to name a section of parkland within Brisbane Corso Park, Yeronga, as ‘John Walker Place’, in honour of the late John Walker’s 45 years of service to the local community.
3. John helped build a sense of community in Yeronga for more than 50 years. John and his wife, Rae Walker, moved to Ormuz Road, Yeronga, in 1967. John passed away in 2018, aged 80.
4. John was a pharmacist who worked in a number of local pharmacies, starting in Anita Street, Yeronga, and in the Yeronga Village. He spent his life raising his three daughters and contributed significantly to community life in the area. John volunteered extensively and was an office bearer with many community organisations including Neighbourhood Watch Queensland, Yeronga Hyde Road Kindergarten, Yeronga State School, Yeronga State High School, Yeronga Probus Club and Yeronga Men’s Shed.
5. John regularly attended the Fairfield Baptist Church and later the Annerley Baptist Church. He was passionate about the environment and wildlife, and ensured the trees planted by Council along the Brisbane Corso were regularly watered and that the BBQs were filled with wood for members of the community to enjoy being down by the river.
6. During both the 1974 and 2011 floods, John assisted residents to move furniture to higher ground and clean up flood damaged houses. John was also a member and volunteer in several State-wide organisations including the Queensland Museum, National Parks Association of Queensland and the Royal Geographical Society of Queensland. In recognition of his long-term service to the local Yeronga community, it is requested Council name a section of parkland within the Brisbane Corso Park as ‘John Walker Place’.
Funding
7. Funding for the name sign is available in the South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2020-21.
Consultation
8. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
9. Formally naming a section of parkland within Brisbane Corso Park, Yeronga, received local support and will acknowledge John Walker’s outstanding contribution and service to the local community.
10. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
11. DECISION:
THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME A SECTION OF PARKLAND WITHIN BRISBANE CORSO PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘JOHN WALKER PLACE’, IN HONOUR OF THE LATE JOHN WALKER’S 45 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL’S OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS PROCEDURE.
NOTED
B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CARRARA STREET PARK AT 68 CARRARA AND 8 NURRAN STREETS, MT GRAVATT EAST, AS ‘CARTER’S REST’
161/540/567/196
26/2020-21
12. The Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
13. Council received a petition requesting to name the parcel of land purchased by Council at 68 Carrara and 8 Nurran Streets, currently known as Carrara Street Park (D2258, B-RE-2874), Mt Gravatt East, as ‘Carter’s Rest’.
14. In 2018, following numerous community objections to vegetation clearing and an application for a townhouse development, Council purchased the land at 68 Carrara and 8 Nurran Streets, Mt Gravatt East, through the Bushland Acquisition Program for future conservation and rehabilitation as part of the fauna corridor linking Whites Hill Reserve to Mt Gravatt Mountain. Following the purchase of the properties, the land has since been rehabilitated with the removal of a derelict house, landscaping with bioretention basins and a replanting day where 3,300 native bushes and trees were planted with the local community.
15. During community discussions, and prior to the purchase of the land, residents advised Council that a koala was found deceased close to the site where the original vegetation on the site was removed. Locals named the koala ‘Carter’ and would like to see the established site named ‘Carter’s Rest’. Given the support outlined in the petition, ‘Carter’s Rest’ is considered a suitable name for the reserve.
Funding
16. Funding for the name sign is available in the East Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2020-21.
Consultation
17. Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
18. Formally naming the parcel of land currently known as Carrara Street Park at 68 Carrara and 8 Nurran Streets, Mt Gravatt East, as ‘Carter’s Rest’ will receive local support.
19. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
20. DECISION:
THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME THE PARCEL OF LAND CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CARRARA STREET PARK AT 68 CARRARA AND 8 NURRAN STREETS, MT GRAVATT EAST, AS ‘CARTER’S REST’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL’S OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS PROCEDURE.
NOTED
C PETITIONS – REQUEST FOR MORE BIKE TRAILS IN THE EAST BRISBANE AND COORPAROO AREAS, AND FOR A DIRT JUMP TRACK TO BE BUILT NEAR COORPAROO SKATE PARK
CA20/298209 and CA20/479602
27/2020-21
21. Council received two petitions from residents requesting Council build more bike trails in the East Brisbane and Coorparoo areas and for a dirt jump track to be built near Coorparoo Skate Park. Petition CA20/298209 was received during the Election Recess 2020. Petition CA20/479602 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 5 May 2020, by Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, and received.
22. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
23. Petition CA20/298209 contains 84 signatures and petition CA20/479602 contains 132 signatures.
24. The Common Park, Coorparoo, is a district level park that has multiple facilities, including a skate park, a playground, a drone flying area, fitness equipment and a toilet block. Council officers have investigated the petitioners’ request and acknowledge there may be justification for a dirt jump track or BMX facility within the Coorparoo Ward.
25. Under Brisbane City Plan 2014, a district level recreation park is deemed to service the catchment within three kilometres of this location. The guiding principle is that district level parks are larger in size and are usually subject to higher levels of embellishment, including large playgrounds, fitness equipment and BMX trails. Subsequently, these types of parks serve as destination parks attracting visitors from a broader and wider catchment, and are therefore often accessed via car or public transport.
26. This request for BMX facilities within The Common Park will be considered as part of either capital upgrade or the Coorparoo Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund, subject to consultation with local residents and also environment groups, noting the site’s proximity to Norman Creek. In the meantime, Goodwin Park, Yeronga, and Muriel Avenue Park, Moorooka, both have BMX facilities available, and both are less than 10 kilometres from The Common Park. In late 2019, Council opened a new BMX facility at D.M. Henderson Park in MacGregor and there are plans for a BMX track at Murarrie Recreation Reserve.
27. Council is currently developing the Brisbane Off-Road Cycling project (the project). The project aims to meet the needs of the rapidly growing off-road cycling community by identifying a safe, well-planned and connected network of off-road cycling facilities. As part of the project, Council is also reviewing opportunities to provide off-road cycling connections in parks and bushland reserves in a way that ensures Council achieves a balance between conservation and recreation. Opportunities to establish off-road cycling facilities in proximity to The Common Park, Coorparoo, will be considered as part of the project.
Funding
28. To be considered as part of either capital upgrade of by the Coorparoo Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
Consultation
29. Councillor Fiona Cunningham, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
30. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
31. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition References: CA20/298209 and CA20/479602
Thank you for your petitions requesting Council build more bike trails in the East Brisbane and Coorparoo areas, and for a dirt jump track to be built near Coorparoo Skate Park.
The Common Park, Coorparoo, is a district level park that has multiple facilities, including a skate park, a playground, a drone flying area, fitness equipment and a toilet block. Council officers have investigated the petitioner’s request and acknowledge there may be justification for a dirt jump track or BMX facility within the Coorparoo Ward.
Under Brisbane City Plan 2014, a district level recreation park is deemed to service the catchment within three kilometres of its location. The guiding principle is that district level parks are larger in size and are usually subject to higher levels of embellishment, including large playgrounds, fitness equipment and BMX trails. Subsequently, these types of parks serve as destination parks attracting visitors from a broader and wider catchments and are therefore often accessed via car or public transport.
This request for BMX facilities within The Common Park will be considered as part of either capital upgrade or the Coorparoo Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund, subject to consultation with local residents and environment groups, noting the site’s proximity to Norman Creek. In the meantime, Goodwin Park, Yeronga, and Muriel Avenue Park, Moorooka, both have BMX facilities available, and both are less than 10 kilometres from The Common Park. In late 2019, Council opened a new BMX facility at D.M. Henderson Park in Macgregor and there are plans for a BMX track at Murarrie Recreation Reserve.
Council is currently developing the Brisbane Off-Road Cycling project (the project). The project aims to meet the needs of the rapidly growing off-road cycling community by identifying a safe, well-planned and connected network of off-road cycling facilities. As part of the project, Council is also reviewing opportunities to provide off-road cycling connections in parks and bushland reserves in a way that ensures Council achieves a balance between conservation and recreation. Opportunities to establish off-road cycling facilities in proximity to The Common Park, Coorparoo, will be considered as part of the project.
For more information on the project and to sign up for updates, please visit the project webpage by searching ‘Brisbane Off-Road Cycling’ on Council’s website or email parks@brisbane..au.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Susan Dymock, Senior Program Officer, Bushland Acquisition, Biodiversity and Conservation Planning, Biodiversity Management, Parks and Natural Resources Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 9149.
Thank you for raising this matter.
NOTED
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Councillor Kim MARX, Chair of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steve TOOMEY that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council during the Winter Recess 2020, on matters usually coming under the jurisdiction of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, be noted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Sorry, Chair, I forgot about your bit.
Chair: That's all right.
Please proceed.
Councillor MARX: I've only got the one petition regarding Katie the German Shepherd which I'm—potentially may be debated in the Chamber, I'll leave it at that.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on item A. I appreciate this is a—somewhat of a sensitive issue and obviously, a distressing one for both the victims of the dog and also the owners of the dog. The problem we've got here though from what I can see is the response to the petitioners. If this matter is before the courts at the moment, obviously QCAT (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal), somewhere in our response we should be saying that we will abide by the decision of the courts when it comes to the outcome. So nowhere in the petition response do we actually say that to residents. I think that we need to be a bit clearer. Instead of all this lovely—I'm sure—and true, without question—shelter staff are highly trained. The welfare of all animals is a primary focus of their responsibilities. Staff are qualified, monitoring Katie.
That's irrelevant to the whole process that's going on here. I think Council needs to be more up front with residents and clearer that it will abide by any decision that is made by the courts once all appeal processes have been exhausted. That information should be clearly communicated to residents. Trying to put in all this touchy-feely stuff about the staff looking after the dog in the welfare centre—they're doing a great job, I don't question that—but that's not relevant to the petition.
The relevant part that is—should be in the petition response—is what Council is going to do in accordance with our legal obligations once all court and appeals processes have been addressed. That's barely referenced. I think is a very, very poor response. Clearly if the matter has gone to QCAT it's not going to just go away because we say nice, touchy-feely things. We need to be clearer in how we respond on this petition.
Chair: Further speakers?
Further speakers on this matter?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay, I just want to address that comment by the Councillor for the Tennyson Ward through you, Mr Chair. The reason the paragraph talks about Katie's welfare and our staff and how they're managing her is because there was an allegation by the owner of the dog that that was not the case. So that's exactly and specifically why that comment is there in that petition response. I think it would be—it goes without saying obviously if there's a legal obligation from Council, we follow the legal process. Whatever the legal people say is what happens. I mean, I don't think that there would be any doubt about that so I'm not sure why people would be assuming that we wouldn't follow whatever the legal advice is.
As I've said before, this is a delicate matter. Obviously, people take these things very seriously as does Council. The reality is Council has received 12 complaints about the dog including allegations that the dog had been involved in three dog attacks. But as it states here, it is with QCAT. Once that decision is handed down then that's what will happen. Thank you.
Chair: I will now put item A.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE DESTRUCTION ORDER PLACED ON KATIE THE GERMAN SHEPHERD
CA19/871712 and CA19/871859
28/2020-21
1. Two petitions from residents, requesting Council reconsider the Destruction Order placed on Katie the German Shepherd, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 September 2019, by Councillor Charles Strunk on behalf of Councillor Kara Cook, and received.
2. The Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the following information.
3. The safety of the public regarding uncontrolled animals is something Council takes very seriously. Council’s Animals Local Law 2017 places responsibility on the owners of dogs to ensure their pets are always under adequate control, including keeping dogs on a leash when out in public.
4. Council has received 12 complaints about Katie since 6 October 2017. This includes allegations that Katie has been involved in three dog attacks.
5. Council undertook a comprehensive investigation of the allegations made against Katie, including obtaining witness statements. After assessing evidence obtained, consideration was given to Katie’s known history and the danger posed to the community. As a result, a decision was made to proceed with a Destruction Order.
6. Katie’s owner raised concerns about the investigation undertaken and the conduct of Council officers involved. A review of the investigation and decision was conducted and found all officers involved acted appropriately, lawfully and in accordance with approved procedures.
7. Council does not take the removal of pets lightly. This course of action is a last resort for animals involved in multiple attacks and continued non-compliance with conditions that result in an extremely high risk to public safety. A strict legal process must be followed regarding the removal of an animal, and this process provides the owner with internal appeal avenues, and an external option via the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Katie’s owner has appealed Council’s decision with QCAT, and the matter is currently under QCAT review.
8. In relation to the petitioners’ concerns about Katie’s welfare, Council’s Animal Rehoming Centres, administered by the Animal Welfare League of Queensland, tend to all animals in their care under strict animal welfare standards. Shelter staff are highly trained, and the welfare of all animals is the primary focus of their responsibilities. Staff and qualified veterinarians are constantly monitoring Katie’s health and providing care as necessary.
Consultation
9. Councillor Greg Adermann, Councillor for Pullenvale Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
10. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 27 July 2020.
11. DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition References: CA19/871712 and CA19/871859
Thank you for your petitions requesting Council reconsider the Destruction Order placed on Katie the German Shepherd and allow her to return home.
The safety of the public regarding uncontrolled animals is something Council takes very seriously. Council’s Animals Local Law 2017 places responsibility on the owners of dogs to ensure their pets are always under adequate control, including keeping dogs on a leash when out in public.
Council has received 12 complaints about Katie since 6 October 2017. This includes allegations that Katie has been involved in three dog attacks.
Council undertook a comprehensive investigation of the allegations made against Katie, including obtaining witness statements. After assessing evidence obtained, consideration was given to Katie’s known history and the danger posed to the community. As a result, a decision was made to proceed with a Destruction Order.
Katie’s owner raised concerns about the investigation undertaken and the conduct of Council officers involved. A review of the investigation and decision was conducted and found all officers involved acted appropriately, lawfully and in accordance with approved procedures.
Council does not take the removal of pets lightly. This course of action is a last resort for animals involved in multiple attacks and continued non-compliance with conditions that result in an extremely high risk to public safety. A strict legal process must be followed regarding the removal of an animal, and this process provides the owner with internal appeal avenues, and an external option via the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Katie’s owner has appealed Council’s decision with QCAT, and the matter is currently under QCAT review.
In relation to the petitioners’ concerns about Katie’s welfare, Council’s Animal Rehoming Centres, administered by the Animal Welfare League of Queensland, tend to all animals in their care under strict animal welfare standards. Shelter staff are highly trained, and the welfare of all animals is the primary focus of their responsibilities. Staff and qualified veterinarians are constantly monitoring Katie’s health and providing care as necessary.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Shane Millard, A/Safety, Amenity and Litter Business Manager, City Safety, Compliance and Regulatory Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, on (07) 3403 4506.
Thank you for raising this matter.
NOTED
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – CONCERNS REGARDING USE OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AS SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION:
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
29/2020-21
The Chair of Council (Councillor Andrew WINES) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Jonathan SRI to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor Jonathan SRI moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that—
1. Brisbane City Council acknowledges that there are growing concerns among apartment residents in Brisbane about the use of residential apartments as short-term accommodation and de facto hotel rooms.
2. Council notes the concerns raised in The Sunday Mail on 11 July 2020 regarding how the use of apartments as short-term accommodation negatively impacts other residents.
3. Council recognises that the widespread conversion of residential apartments into short-term accommodation is likely to reduce the supply of affordable homes for local residents.
4. Council will take all available steps to prevent residential apartments being converted into short-term accommodation without the support of neighbouring residents.
5. Council requires the LORD MAYOR, Councillors, and Council Officers to provide complete, accurate and timely responses to inquiries from ratepayer associations and civil society groups representing residents.
6. On behalf of ratepayers and residents of strata title properties, Council will take all necessary steps to clarify the property rights and responsibilities relating to residential amenity as requested by the Unit Owners Association of Queensland (UOAQ).
7. That Council carefully consider the exposure of Council Executive Officers to the Executive Liability Provisions of the Planning Act and Building Act with regard to the matters raised with Council by the Unit Owners Association of Queensland.
Chair: Is there any debate on the matter?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. The motion I brought to the Chamber today deals with an important issue which in some respects is pretty complex but when viewed through a different light is actually quite simple and straightforward. Residential apartments should primarily be used for long-term residents and not as short-term hotels. It's really that simple. Brisbane is seeing a growing trend of apartments which were planned, designed, approved and constructed as residential dwellings being converted into short-term accommodation and de facto hotel rooms.
This trend serves the short-term financial interests of some property investors, developers and building managers and perhaps even the interests of some Councillors in this meeting who own investment properties. But it's very clearly contrary to the wider long-term public interest and in particular is contrary to the interests of directly impacted long-term residents who live in these apartment towers. Similar trends have been observed in other growing cities around the world where residential neighbourhoods are gradually turned into transient hotel precincts one dwelling at a time.
As a result, locals find it harder and harder to afford to live close to their place of work or study and communities are fragmented irrevocably. When I say locals, I'm not just talking about Australian citizens but the many international students and migrant workers who help keep our city ticking along and who want to live in these denser inner city neighbourhoods but are priced out when residential rental accommodation is taken up by wealthier short-term visitors.
The Unit Owners Association of Queensland has raised a number of detailed concerns regarding this issue and via email I have tabled several documents provided by the UOAQ including legal advice which appears to indicate that Brisbane City Council may be exposing itself and its officers to significant legal liability by allowing the status quo to continue unchecked. The tabled documents also include letters from the Queensland Premier clarifying that Brisbane City Council does indeed have the power and responsibility to address the concerns that so many residents are articulating.
When apartments which were designed for long-term residents are repurposed as short-term accommodation this causes significantly more wear and tear on common areas within a building and often also leads to more noise disruption and other quality of life impacts for long-term residents of the building. While proper hotels have fire escape routes and emergency evacuation procedures that are designed to be easily intelligible for short-term visitors who maybe don't know the building well, many apartments which are designed for long-term residents have evacuation procedures and routes that might not be as immediately obvious for a hotel room guest which would raise fairly serious safety concerns during an emergency that requires evacuation.
Crucially, when apartments which are classified as class 2 buildings are repurposed as short-term accommodation or converted without development approval, this potentially voids the insurance cover for entire buildings and exposes all owners to significant financial risks. The tabled documents go into a bit more detail about that. Many unit owners are also concerned that developers, real estate agents and other property industry actors are misleading prospective buyers and renters about how these apartment buildings will be used.
People are buying and taking on leases in these buildings on the understanding that they will be living in a residential complex only to find that they've been deceived by property managers and agents who subsequently turn the building into a hotel effectively. In many cases developers are selling property management rights to hotel companies whose specific business model revolves around short-term rentals regardless of whether the development has actually been approved for short-term accommodation.
I think it's probably important to understand that sections 22, 27 of the Planning Act and section 257 of the Building Act impose legal liability on Council executives and officers for failing to act in response to these non-compliant building uses. I am personally concerned that Council is knowingly looking the other way to allow unapproved short-term accommodation uses to continue operating without any meaningful inspection or enforcement. At a citywide policy level, the conversion of residential apartments to short-term accommodation is also negatively impacting housing affordability for local residents.
In order to meet dwelling targets in the State Government's regional plan, Council has zoned and approved a very large number of high density residential apartments, particularly in inner city areas where the land available for development is limited. However if owners rent these apartments to short-term visitors rather than long-term renters, the pool of available rental properties remains too small to actually put downward pressure on rents. So it is effectively undermining that broad goal of building more housing in order to provide housing for local residents. We're simply allowing those homes to be turned into hotel rooms and local residents are missing out.
I wouldn't be surprised if the LNP tries to argue that there's no difference between short-term accommodation and long-term rentals, or the apartment owners should be able to do whatever they want with their apartments. But even when viewed through the LNP's own ideological lens, this trend towards converting apartments into short-term accommodation clearly violates the property rights of neighbouring apartment residents to quiet enjoyment of their own properties. The LNP has allowed profit-driven developers to turn public air space into private apartment towers, essentially enclosing and privatising private property.
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Bordering on imputing motive there saying that Councillors allowed these things to happen. That is not correct, and there is an inference there about why.
Chair: As I stated earlier, no Councillor—to impute motive or adversely effect on another Councillor—Councillor SRI's comment that—about privatisation of the public air space—is a pejorative presentation of things that have happened but I don't necessarily view that they are objectively untrue.
Councillor SRI: It's a fact, Chair. Thank you. It's a fact that the LNP have allowed private developers to build high rise apartment towers. I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that. The LNP has done that on the basis that increasing the supply of apartments is supposedly in the public interest. So having approved all those residential apartment developments it's now incumbent upon the LNP Administration to ensure that those apartments are used for the purposes that they were approved for. Failure to do so would make a mockery of the strategic goals of BCC's City Plan and the Council's stated objective of increasing the supply of housing.
So the LNP might try to argue that owners and body corporates are perfectly entitled to apply for development approval to formalise these conversions. But this Council has control of the assessment codes and development approval frameworks that allow this to happen. So having acknowledged that this is a problem this Council Administration needs to take responsibility for preventing this trend towards short-term accommodation conversions. Fundamentally we have a deeper problem of uncertainty of rights and responsibilities for all involved parties that BCC clearly needs to address.
Owners and tenants don't know what kinds of buildings they are moving into. Body corporates are struggling to balance the competing demands of different owners and different kinds of tenants. The wider community has no idea whether a building which is approved for residential accommodation could actually turn out to be a higher impact hotel without anyone getting a meaningful say. So I guess what I'm saying to other Councillors in this Chamber is to think about how your residents would feel if what they thought was a residential development or even a group of houses that had been there for a very long time were suddenly turned into hotel rooms without any meaningful public consultation.
Without an impact assessable development application et cetera, and suddenly your residents are living next door to a hotel and what impact that would have on community and what impact that would have on individuals. I think probably most Councillors in this place would agree that that's not a good outcome. It's not something that this Administration should be supporting. The real question is essentially, who takes responsibility and what are Council's responsibilities to act on this. From the documents tabled it's very clear that Council does have a range of powers to address this problem.
Council does have the ability to stop approving these conversions or to rezone some of the sites that are zoned for example as principal centre use to change that short-term accommodation option for developers. The fact that Council is not doing that is really leaving a lot of residents in the lurch. They're screwing over a lot of people. Now this is going to become more and more of an issue long term. It's actually stabilised a little bit at the moment due to the pandemic shutdown and the drop in demand from international tourists. But we're seeing this across the world. It's going to continue as a problem.
The Administration clearly needs to do something about it rather than just kicking the can down the road and saying, oh it's too hard, or it's up to the State Government or we're already enforcing it because clearly we're not. We're not doing enough to address this. I'm hearing from dozens of unit owners and renters in my electorate. I'm sure Councillor HOWARD gets complaints about party hotels and party apartments from time to time. The point is we can't leave this up to individual body corporates. We can't leave this to the State Government. This is something that Council needs to take responsibility for and the wording of the motion reflects that. So I'll leave it at that for now but I would be interested to see what other Councillors have to say on this.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes thank you, Mr Chair. I was happy to second the motion by Councillor SRI. I'm not—point seven is a little bit vague so I appreciate his further explanation in his speech there before us. I certainly hope tonight it will be Councillor MARX that responds to this issue because this is a matter for the City Standards Committee. There is a planning aspect here too, as well, which Councillor SRI addressed. But in my view, there is an enforcement issue here. It is critical that our CARS (Compliance and Regulatory Services) and the Council officers undertake proper investigations when residents report an unauthorised use or an unapproved use of a dwelling.
Presumably that's what has been happening here in the background with respect to the problem that Councillor SRI has outlined. Too often, I know in my area—it's a slightly different problem out here—we are getting houses that are being built without any town planning oversight by Council that are turned into apartments. Then you get students and/or short-term stay people and—it's not the same problem as Councillor SRI is talking about—but it's a significant problem. It is a battle, an absolute battle with Council to try and get an investigation, to get action from Council.
Then there's the two-step shuffle that goes on under City Plan. Well, they don't need a DA if they go under this provision of the city planning scheme. So they'll change and they'll say no we're not doing a rooming accommodation. Then they put it on the internet as rooming accommodation. Then we complain again. Then go back to Council. Oh yes, you need a DA. This is not working. This is an enforcement issue as far as I'm concerned. Council—I agree with Councillor SRI completely. Council has an obligation to intervene, to ensure that the City Plan requirements and our Planning Act responsibilities are being properly implemented.
I would certainly, if I lived in a high rise apartment and spent a lot of money on buying and the party house from hell next door opens up with people coming in and out that would just be not acceptable. It's certainly not what's envisaged under the zoning requirement for most of these buildings I would be presuming. It is essential that Council takes action. This is clearly an enforcement issue. Certainly if there are changes to City Plan that need to be made that should be addressed. I will certainly be bringing forward this session of Council some changes about rooming accommodation because it's clear to me that Council is not taking the necessary enforcement action that’s needed.
We are getting perverse outcomes in residential communities where the use is no longer what was intended and Council won't do anything about it. So I support the motion. I think Council needs to do more through its investigation and enforcement process and certainly where relevant and practical make changes to City Plan to ensure that residents' amenity is protected and the purpose of the zoning is respected and enforced by Council.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair and I will be speaking on behalf of the LNP Administration with regard to the short-term accommodation motion. We won't be supporting this motion today in its entirety. I just want to explain why that is the case. We do hear loud and clear there are concerns by local residents when it comes to the use of short-term accommodation in existing residential buildings. But having said that, as has been recognised by Councillor SRI, under the Brisbane City Plan and State Planning Act they are a lawful style of accommodation in certain areas.
We know Airbnb remains an unlawful use in this city. But there are some unit owners who go through the due process in lodging a development application to get an approval for short-term accommodation. Because of this we know where they are, where they comply and the applications are properly scrutinised by Council's planning officers before a decision is made. So let's just make it clear. Short-term accommodation requires a code assessable development application when it's proposed in high density, medium density or low-medium density residential zone. It does not require a development approval if it is in a centre or mixed use zone.
So in particular if it's in a principal centre, as major centre, a district centre or a neighbourhood centre it does not require a DA as well. But in addition to these, their use must be an existing building so it does not increase—just to those zones—they must be an existing building that does not increase in a gross floor area. So it has to comply with mixed code centre applications. It's got to deal with air pollutants and the flood overlays and all those other aspects that need to be looked at when we look at a development application.
It's got to tick all the boxes to be considered self-assessable or it comes through Council as well. As many of you know, owners’ consent is necessary for any development application to be properly made. That's important when we're talking about short-term accommodation being introduced into existing residential buildings. Because I feel this motion, the intent is around Councillor SRI's area in the high rise buildings where some of the apartments end up short-term or—the first time I've heard it—they've handed over the management to a hotel chain as well.
In addition to the individual unit owner consent, nine times out of 10 the body corporate constitution does require that they have to endorse the change of use as well. So having said that, we all know every body corporate is not the same. Many of the set rules are designed to keep a building the way they currently are. But that does differ on a case to case basis. But back to reality. The issue of a private property rights. If an owner would like to change the use of their dwelling, they can do that. If some time down the track they want to change it back they can do that.
This is the beauty of individual freedom of private property rights which I know Councillor SRI is very vehemently against. But when we're actually looking at applications that come through there is in 2018-19, 23 applications for short-term accommodations, six were new and approved. Seventeen were changed and 16 were approved and one refused—so obviously in suitable locations. Again only 25 applications in 2019-20, three applications in this financial year. Again, one out of those three have been refused. The trick is that we also need to know that there is an issue there.
I hear the Councillor of Tennyson that it's an enforcement issue and we've got to get out there and do more. But right now in this point of time I can assure you that Council officers are being seconded left, right and centre to do Queensland Health's work across a pandemic that is causing way more issues than the one we are confronting here today. We do need to balance the work of enforcement officers as well. But in saying that if you let us know we can start the enforcement action and we have done that.
I know Councillor SRI has had some that he's brought up in the past, none to me as Chair since I've been in the chair but I know Margaret Street and Spices have been brought through, dealt with and looked at through enforcement and unfortunately both fine to go ahead on the zoning that they have. I know that doesn't mean that everybody is happy with it but we need to comply. However we also need to know before we can go out in enforcement as well. We are not mind-readers. So we need to know.
But the core part of this too, one of the comments here or one of the paragraphs, is about the LORD MAYOR and timely responses. The letters that have been received from Councillor SRI or anyone else, the Units Association or anybody who has contacted the LORD MAYOR and myself, the current LORD MAYOR and myself, the previous Chairs, have all been dealt with. We get over 7,000 correspondence that come through each year, a really high volume. The time frames are a four-week response and we turn them around as fast as we possibly can.
The Unit Owners Association of Queensland has contacted us about this issue and we've responded to every one of those when they've come in to us as well. But I have to say again the compliance and taking enforcement action on the illegal short-term accommodations, we just need to know about them. It's difficult to know about every issue across the city but we need to just chip away where we can do it. We can't deal with barking dogs unless we know they're barking. We can't deal with illegal dumping unless we know about it.
We can't deal with short-term accommodation units unless we know the issues, where they are, whether they comply and the team can go out and have that conversation. So please, bring it to our attention, your specifics, not the general political commentary we see here today, but the specifics so we can actually do something about it. We obviously play a role in making sure non-compliant issue are investigated, fixed, stopped or a DA is submitted so we can actually correct it and it becomes a lawful use. We definitely have shown cause notices—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections please.
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you. I will take the interjection of retrospective approvals. Obviously, many of them are retrospective approvals but if they are going to go and do the right thing, we encourage people to do the right thing. It is their property rights if they are able to do it there that they can do it there. But if they can't we won't give a retrospective approval if they're not allowed to do it where they are setting up a short-term accommodation. If we want to talk about retrospective approvals and things done overnight with no development and applications, no consultation and no plan to answer the 400% increase in crime, let's talk about what happened to our student accommodation in Toowong, at Glen Road and at Coronation Drive.
That is retrospective DAs with no consideration for the community. We don't think at this point of time that there is a widespread of conversions from apartments in short-term accommodation. Based on the information that we've been given as the planning Chair, as the LORD MAYOR, as the Administration but Councillor SRI, if you have that evidence, and the first I've heard about an apartment building being handed over to a hotel chain to manage, we need to know about these things. We need to know and a formal letter to me or the LORD MAYOR or Councillor MARX, then we can start taking the steps we need to take.
I'm not saying that we then go and show cause straight away but we will be firm and friendly and fair to all property owners whether they're doing the right or the wrong thing. We will respond to them. We will respond to you and we will prevent it happening where it doesn't belong. We always investigate the allegations of non-compliance when it's brought to our attention. But we will be firm and fair with regard to our compliance across all of our compliance avenues in the city and get the right balance of the property rights of residents and owners alike.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will be speaking on the Notice of Motion tonight that does raise some pretty serious concerns regarding the use of residential apartments as short-term accommodation in Brisbane. Mr Chair, Labor will be supporting this motion tonight. Mr Chair, myself like many Councillors in this place have had residents raise concerns about the use of residential apartments as short-term accommodation. Certainly also in Morningside Ward, although it's not the inner city, I believe many of the inner suburbs are experiencing this problem. I do note the correspondence that all Councillors in this place received from the Unit Owners Association of Queensland earlier this year.
In the past I have raised these issues when they have occurred locally with Council officers directly from development and built environment teams and often also with CARS which has assisted in resolving some of these issues when they're on a smaller scale. However I was very interested to read The Sunday Mail article that's referred to in the Notice of Motion and again although these are not new issues, clearly they are ongoing matters that have not been addressed by the LORD MAYOR or by the LNP Administration.
Mr Chair, in relation to housing affordability that is also noted in the Notice of Motion it is certainly quite a well-established principle that particularly unregulated short-term accommodation can make housing less affordable. It can also result in reduced housing choices for residents. The Unit Owners Association of Queensland have raised concerns that their issues have not been addressed by Council in a timely manner. We've just heard from Councillor ADAMS that—well, we responded. I'm sorry but simply providing a response, not addressing the actual issues, is not really good enough. Coming into this place and blaming everyone else and taking zero responsibility is not good enough.
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Councillor COOK: —did not know and you need to tell us—
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Councillor COOK: —is also not good enough.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: Mr Chair, unfortunately this is a common trend in this place. It's a common complaint when it comes to a whole range of issues raised by residents or interest groups with this LORD MAYOR and with this LNP Administration. Often in this place we see petitions taking over 12 months to return to Council, residents' concerns and enquiries completely ignored or interest groups not consulted on critical decisions which would directly impact them or those that are of interest to their members. This LORD MAYOR and this LNP Administration is completely lacking in transparency and accountability.
They are completely devoid of the ability to undertake effective community consultation. They are happy to say, we do it, but it's not effective. It is without any semblance of good governance. This extends across a range of issues brought before us each and every week but is particularly apparent when it comes to development related matters like this one before us today. Mr Chair, it is Labor's view that both the LORD MAYOR and the LNP Administration need to provide a proper substantive response to the matters raised in this Notice of Motion. Sadly we've heard today or tonight that they will not be supporting this Notice of Motion.
These are genuine issues that are of genuine concern to the residents of this city. This is just another example of the not listening or responding appropriately to those who they are actually meant to serve. This should not have needed to be a Notice of Motion today. These issues should have been adequately addressed by the LORD MAYOR and LNP months ago when they were raised with them. The use of residential apartments as short-term accommodation can have a very direct and significant impact on people's quiet enjoyment of their homes.
It is Labor's view, Mr Chair, that the LORD MAYOR and the LNP needs to do a lot better when it comes to responding to these types of issues. They need to actually listen to what they are being told by the residents of this city. Disappointingly, as I've said, they won't be supporting this motion tonight nor have they provided a substantive response or any action so that these issues can actually be resolved. Simply quoting, as we've heard from Councillor ADAMS tonight, the existing planning requirements is not good enough. Saying, well you just need to tell us, is not good enough.
The system is clearly broken. There are clearly issues with what is going on in this space. We need there to be a change. So I do implore the other LNP Councillors all of whom have received this correspondence, particularly Councillor HOWARD. I know that I've had residents from her area raise these issues with me. I know it also impacts Councillor SRI's ward significantly. I congratulate him for bringing the notice forward. It's disappointing that he had to, but here we are. So Labor will be supporting this motion tonight and thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order.
Chair: Excuse me, yes, Councillor ADAMS, misrepresentation.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you. Councillor COOK said that I blamed everyone else and passed the buck. I don't think I did that at all. I said, happy to hear it and take the steps to address any of the concerns.
Chair: Thank you.
Further speakers? I see no further speakers.
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. It is a little disappointing—
Chair: Councillor SRI, before you start, earlier you referred to some documents that were tabled, that should have been distributed to all Councillors through the email system for your viewing.
Apologies to Councillor SRI. Please continue.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. It's a little disappointing to see some of my concerns dismissed a little bit too hastily. I want to drill down into some of the comments that Councillor ADAMS made. One of the trains of argument was that this isn't actually yet a big trend in Brisbane. Councillor ADAMS referred to the number of development applications received for short-term accommodation conversions. I think she's right to say that in the context of a large and growing city maybe 25 a year doesn't seem like a lot. But some of those are applications for an entire building.
So it's not one—so the 25 does not mean that there are 25 individual apartments being converted. In some cases that might be dozens of apartments in a particular tower building. But more to the point is that it's not the number of development applications that have been received that we need to be looking at. It's the number of apartments where this is actually happening. I challenge Councillor ADAMS and also Councillor MARX to just spend a couple of minutes on Airbnb and look up how many apartments are available for rent in and around Brisbane.
You will see that there are many properties advertised for rent as short-term accommodation where there clearly wouldn't be a development approval or the appropriate zoning to allow short-term accommodation. So I guess kind of two issues at play here. On the one hand we've got the concerns about poor enforcement and CARS maybe not having the resource to properly investigate complaints or proactively check up on these unauthorised users. On the other hand though we have the concern that in some cases owners are applying for approval for a conversion to short-term accommodation and Council is simply allowing that and saying well. it's code assessable and we're just going to let that happen.
So there are two related problems here but I think it's—I just want Councillor ADAMS in particular to understand that it shouldn't be my job to hold the hand of the LORD MAYOR and guide the Administration as to how to respond to this problem. I'm notifying you that anyone who spends five minutes searching online can find dozens of properties which are being rented out as short-term accommodation without the appropriate approvals. I'm not going to have the time to individually copy over each of those Airbnb listings and hotel listings online and send them through to you, Councillor ADAMS.
But I encourage your officers and your team to take the time and look into this because it is a growing and widespread issue. It's not just a couple dozen a year. It's happening all over the place. As the pandemic eases we're probably likely to see more of this in the future because there may be fewer international students or fewer migrant workers and a lot of owners looking to reap a profit from their investment properties who are then going to convert it back to short-term accommodation. But the deeper policy problem is that when Council finds out about these non-compliant uses often their response is to simply say to the owner, all right well you can just apply for development approval.
Then the problem is fixed. We don't have to worry about it anymore. But that doesn't actually address the residents' concerns. Because the residents' concern is not whether the use is technically compliant with City Plan. The residents' concerns are that they're getting impacted by significant noise and that their common areas of their apartments are being trashed and that they don't feel like they know the people who are living in the building around them. They don't feel safe in their own properties. Councillor ADAMS talked a lot about private property rights but I think neglected to engage with the legitimate point that people are experiencing serious negative impacts on their use of their own property.
So if your concern is about private property rights—through you Chair—Councillor ADAMS, you need to recognise that people's private property rights are being directly affected because they're getting woken up in the middle of the night by hotel parties and people doing stupid stuff all over the place. But at the broader policy level my concern is that Council should not just be approving all these short-term accommodation conversions. It's not enough to say, oh well this zoning actually allows short-term accommodation so it's fine. Or they have put in the development application so we're just going to rubber stamp it.
The point is that this conversion represents a dramatic intensification of use. Long-term residential dwelling use is not the same as short-term accommodation. Although the building might have already been built, when you introduce people who are coming in and out as short-term visitors who have to have access to swipe cards and don't know their way around the building, et cetera, et cetera it does change people's material experiences of their home. So Council needs to be looking seriously at the impacts on the community when it approves these short term uses.
It is also important to understand that in order to get landowners’ consent depending on the property zoning you can have your building rezoned or approved for short-term accommodation around you and be outvoted on a body corporate. So any development tower for example where there's a majority of investor owners, let's say you have one third owner occupiers or longer-term rental residents and then maybe two thirds investors, the investors that have majority vote at the body corporate can decide to convert the entire building to short-term accommodation and sign off on landowner's consent.
Then those owner occupiers who are in the minority simply find that their entire building is being turned into a hotel room around them. The problem, Councillor ADAMS, that I articulated regarding hotel companies is that many property management bodies specifically bid for property management rights when developments are being sold off the plan. They bid high and offer significant amounts of money for those property management rights on the basis that they will be able to operate a short-term accommodation model.
So the—what you might think of as sort of the smaller scale owner occupier property managers who actually live on site and they just help keep the place maintained, et cetera, they are only able to bid a certain amount for those management rights. But another company will come in and say, yes, yes, we'll pay a lot more for the property management rights, knowing that down the track they're just going to start renting the whole place out as a hotel. So they will contact individual investor owners. They'll say to each of those owners, don't rent it out privately yourself. Let us handle the rentals for you. Give us the keys. We'll manage it on your behalf. We'll be the landlord and the real estate agent and all of that. So as a result, although it might not look like it from the outside these apartment towers are actually functioning as hotel rooms. As I said before this isn't just a problem about the impacts on those residents who actually live in the apartments. It's a broader problem where Council has said, you are approving all these things to meet your dwelling targets.
The question that Councillor ADAMS hasn't been able to answer, and the LNP Administration hasn't been able to answer, is that if you're required to provide 188,000 dwellings over the next two decades or whatever the target is, but all these dwellings that you're currently approving are just turning into short-term hotel accommodation, how are you meeting your target? What happens to—if out of that 180,000, 5,000 are turned into short-term accommodation does that mean you have to approve an additional 5,000? How does this relate to your ongoing approvals for hotels and for motels and other forms of short term accommodation?
I know a few years ago there were significant incentives provided in terms of infrastructure charges to encourage the construction of new hotels. Many of those projects are proving commercially unviable and many mid-tier motels and existing hotels are also proving commercially unviable because of competition from Airbnb. So there's clearly an over-supply of short-term accommodation in the market. As a result, both actual hotel owners are struggling and also local residents are struggling to be able to afford to live in these areas.
I just find it very disingenuous for Councillor ADAMS to say private property owners should be able to do whatever they want with their property in a context where Brisbane City Council places really strong restrictions on how property owners can use different classes of building. We've had plenty of debates and questions in this Chamber about for example the use of warehouses as gyms and sporting facilities or about the conversion of industrial or commercial buildings back into residential buildings without proper approval.
In those contexts Council has micro-managed residents—or micro-managed owners—and interfered with what they're doing in terms of their private property—interfered very directly with their property rights and said, we're going to tell you how you are and aren't allowed to use this building. But in this case, you're taking a very hands-off approach and saying, we're not going to do anything about this problem even though residents are raising it as a concern. So through you, Chair, to Councillor ADAMS and Councillor MARX, I will be passing on complaint about non-compliant uses when I become aware of them.
But the broader problem is that you are continuing to approve and make compliant short-term accommodation in buildings which aren't designed for it. Just because an apartment block has been built doesn't mean that it's been designed to properly accommodate short-term residents who are coming and going on a regular basis and don't know their way around the building. There's a clear problem here that's only going to grow over time. It's not satisfactory for this Council Administration to wash its hands of the issues and to dismiss the concerns and fail to engage with the substantive criticisms. Thanks.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI.
I will now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Kara COOK and Jonathan SRI immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Kara COOK, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 18 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chair: Councillors are there any items of General Business—are there any petitions, I should say.
Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: Chair, I present a petition from residents for a speed bump at 78 Bald Hills Road.
Chair: Councillor DAVIS.
Councillor DAVIS: Right, thank you, Chair. I have a petition requesting that 818 Rode Road, Stafford Heights, be named Remick Street Bushland Reserve.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I have three petitions. The first is for a zebra crossing on Mildmay Street at Fairfield, between Fairfield Gardens Station and Fairfield Rail Station. I’ve emailed through the hardcopies.
Secondly, on behalf of Councillor GRIFFITHS and myself, I am tabling the petition calling for safety improvements and a 10-point plan to fix Ipswich Road in Annerley. I’m tabling both the electronic petition and a hardcopy of the petition which has been emailed through.
Thirdly, I’m tabling a petition on behalf of Sherwood and Corinda residents who Councillor ADAMS has very outrageously attacked tonight, calling on Council to buy back the residential blocks adjoining the Francis Lookout in Corinda. That’s also been emailed through.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair. I have two petitions to present. One calling for safety upgrades at the Curlew Park bridge and the other calling on Council to lower the speed limit in Sovereign Place, Boondall, to 40 kilometres an hour, which all the hardcopies have been sent through.
Chair: Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: Thank you, I’ve got a petition to save the Brisbane Greeters and immediately re-instate the program.
Chair: Are there—have I missed any other people?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks Chair, I’ve got a petition for the re-naming of a park in Derby Street in Highgate Hill.
Chair: Any further petitions? I see no hands.
Councillor LANDERS.
30/2020-21
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.
The petitions were summarised as follows:
|File No. |Councillor |Topic |
|CA20/833768 |Sandy Landers |Requesting Council install a speed bump at 78 Bald Hills Road, Bald Hills. |
|CA20/834457 |Tracy Davis |Requesting Council name bushland at 818 Rode Road, Stafford Heights, as ‘Remick|
| | |Street Bushland Reserve’. |
|CA20/833894 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council install a zebra crossing on Mildmay Street, Fairfield, |
| | |between the new entrance to the Fairfield Rail Station and Fairfield Gardens |
| | |Shopping Centre. |
|CA20/834025 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council install a zebra crossing on Mildmay Street, Fairfield, |
| | |between the new entrance to the Fairfield Rail Station and Fairfield Gardens |
| | |Shopping Centre. |
|CA20/834169 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council work with the Annerley community to fix Ipswich Road and |
| | |revitalise Annerley |
|CA20/834793 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council work with the Annerley community to fix Ipswich Road and |
| | |revitalise Annerley |
|CA20/834275 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council purchase residential blocks in Francis Street and Hilda |
| | |Street, Corinda, immediately adjoining the heritage listed Francis Lookout |
|CA20/835605 |Jared Cassidy |Requesting Council install signage, line markings and safety upgrades on the |
| | |approaches to the footbridge at Curlew Park, Deagon, to increase visibility and|
| | |space for users. |
|CA20/835482 |Jared Cassidy |Requesting Council decrease the speed limit in Sovereign Place, Boondall, to 40|
| | |km/h. |
|CA20/835410 |Kara Cook |Requesting Council reinstate and fund the Brisbane Greeters program. |
|CA20/834702 |Jonathan Sri |Requesting Council rename Derby Street Parkland, Highgate Hill, to ‘Dr Manon |
| | |Griffiths Parkland’ and recognise the traditional owners of the land by |
| | |inviting them to propose an Aboriginal language name for the site. |
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chair: Councillors, are there any items of General Business?
Are there any—we’ll begin by, are there any statements required as a result of the Office of the Independent Assessor or Council Ethics Committee order? There being none, Councillors, I will call for General Business but I—once the speaker commences, I will shift—the Chair will shift to Councillor TOOMEY.
Are there any items of General Business?
Councillor DAVIS.
At that time, 7.25pm, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Steven TOOMEY, assumed the Chair.
Councillor DAVIS: Thanks, Chair. On Sunday, it was my privilege to participate in a memorial service held at Pinnaroo Lawn Cemetery in Bridgeman Downs, to recognise National Missing Persons Week, which this year runs from 3 to 8 August. I would like to acknowledge Councillor Vicki HOWARD for her attendance and her support of this becoming an annual event.
Mr Chair, over 38,000 people are reported missing in Australia each year and of these, 60% return or are found within the first 48-hours and overall, 90% of missing persons are located alive. However, for the families of those who are never located, or for those who remain missing for a lengthy period of time, a missing person’s memorial can provide a place for reflection and hope, and to honour a loved one who has not returned home.
The disappearance of Tony Jones in 1982 was the catalyst for the establishment of missing persons week in Australia by the Jones family, so that their son and others like him would never be forgotten.
Mr Jones was in the final stages of a six-month holiday around Australia. His last known contact was in Townsville in early November 1982, where he planned to hitchhike to Mount Isa to meet up with his brother but he was never heard from again.
The inaugural week took place with a memorial service in Townsville in 1988 where the Mayor of Townsville planted a tree in commemoration of Mr Jones.
Brisbane City Council’s very own memorial at Pinnaroo Lawn Cemetery was opened in 2019 and is the only one of its type in Queensland. The purpose-made memorial comprises a teardrop sculpture, set in a reflective pool which offers a tranquil space for contemplation. It provided a dignified backdrop for the service on Sunday.
The ceremony at Pinnaroo was the first time that Council’s cemeteries team has held a memorial service for missing persons week and I know that the thoughtful and respectful manner in which the event was conducted was greatly appreciated by the families present.
It was wonderful to have Bruce and Denise Morcombe present at the service. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Bruce and Denise a number of times through their child safety advocacy work and on each occasion and in every measure, they are inspirational.
Bruce and Denise had very kind words to say about the memorial and spoke about the importance of having a place to go that gives comfort and that honours a missing loved one. I was reminded that it has been 15 years since their son, Daniel, disappeared and this year, the family will open Daniel House, a permanent home for the Daniel Morcombe Foundation.
Also in attendance were representatives of the QPS Missing Persons Unit, Chaplain Watch, former Councillor and now LNP candidate for Aspley, Amanda Cooper, along with cemetery staff and their families.
In most cultures, cemeteries and memorial parks are more than just spaces where we place and remember those who have passed. In many cemeteries around the world, operators are working to activate these spaces with special commemorative memorials and memorial events. Brisbane City Council is one such operator.
I would like to take the opportunity to add my thanks to the team for their work in delivering an event that was considerate and caring, and also for the work that they do every day assisting residents with compassion at a difficult time of loss.
No less important is the work of the ground staff, who undertake great work in making the grounds a welcoming place for residents to come to remember their loved ones.
In addition to the memorial service, Council also lit up the Story Bridge yellow in remembrance of those who have not returned home. We hope these lights and the lights from the candles that were lit on Sunday act as a beacon to help guide those who are lost back home. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor DAVIS.
Is there any further—
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just very briefly, I rise to speak on two matters. Firstly, King Arthur Terrace and the Lord Mayor’s failure to answer my question from Question Time earlier today and Councillor ADAMS’ allegations about the Francis Lookout in the debate earlier today.
Firstly, I just want to put on the record that I’m disappointed the Lord Mayor has not responded to my question on notice from Question Time earlier today. I will give him the courtesy of another week and if he fails to respond next week, then I will take further action. So I hope the LNP Councillors pass on the fact that I do expect him to answer the question.
He made a commitment to Brisbane residents to undertake a traffic survey and to my knowledge, it’s not been done but I would appreciate him confirming whether or not that action has been undertaken and I am seeking a reply.
Secondly, Councillor ADAMS’ allegations about my actions earlier with respect to Francis Street demonstrate a level of bitterness and hypocrisy that is just not appropriate in somebody who occupies the position of the Deputy Mayor.
Firstly, Councillor ADAMS made a number of allegations that are just fundamentally untrue about my actions with respect to the Francis Outlook and I will be taking those up in a different place.
At no point have I given people incorrect, false or wrong information and her allegations there are just outrageous. If she hasn’t, as the planning Chairperson, noted how organic and how concerning the hundreds of objections that have been made are, then I fear for this Council even more than I already do.
Secondly, the level of hypocrisy was apparent to everyone today. Whilst Councillor ADAMS about the Francis Street Outlook buyback suggestion talked about how this Council had to meet—had to meet the State Government’s housing numbers. We’ve been set a target by the State Government and we have to meet the target set by the State Government.
There was one house on this block. There will be four houses now, across the blocks. There are four separately titled blocks. Councillor ADAMS is clearly unfamiliar with the situation. There will be another three houses coming and it is disappointing that she wants to make these kinds of allegations that clearly demonstrate her ignorance of the situation associated with the reserve.
But the biggest issue was the hypocrisy and I’m sorry I had already spoken in the planning and environment committee report so I couldn’t speak again, but Councillor ADAMS went on and on about how important it was that she got buyback for her residents at Mt Gravatt East and how—what a great result for her residents that was.
I didn’t hear a single word from Councillor ADAMS about the importance of those blocks—residential blocks, being turned into houses—or townhouses, as was the proposal, to meet the State Government’s planning targets.
No, apparently those planning targets are only relevant to the residents of Sherwood and Corinda where the character residential area adjoining a heritage place is going to be adversely impacted by the proposal that is currently being assessed by Council.
Today, more than any other day, Councillor ADAMS exposed the level of hypocrisy that she and this Administration are purveying across Brisbane. Where she claims that you can only have houses to meet State Government targets in my ward—in Sherwood and Corinda, but we couldn’t possibly have those houses in her ward—
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order. Point of order, Mr Chair.
Deputy Chair: Point of order, Deputy Mayor.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Blatant misrepresentation.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m sorry, they were townhouses. I do apologise. It was townhouses that they couldn’t have in Mt Gravatt. I’m sure that’s what Councillor ADAMS will be on about but anybody who listened to her earlier today, she was very happy to have her three residential blocks—
Councillor interjecting
Councillor JOHNSTON: —brought back and protected. $6.2 million in total funding. Not even going to be considered in Corinda. Not even going to be considered and you can be sure, Councillor ADAMS, that your cracking little speech will go out very broadly to the hundreds of residents in my community and they will be sent as well—
Deputy Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON: —and I am going to make an effort to do this one, they will certainly be sent—
Deputy Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON: —your lovely speech about—
Deputy Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Sorry?
Deputy Chair: Can I remind you to direct your comments through the Chair, please?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh. Yes. Through you, Mr Chair, they will also be sent Councillor ADAMS’ delightful speech about protecting the blocks of land. The residential blocks of land in her own ward.
I am sure, like me, they will see the level of hypocrisy in the way these two matters are being treated. I would hope that despite the fact that Council rejected the urgency motion earlier today and Councillor ADAMS made very clear comments that she would not support buyback, that the petition will be given due consideration.
This is a very significant high point in our community with a very historic purpose. These residents deserve to have full and proper examination of their request in the same way—in the same way that Councillor ADAMS bent over backwards for her own residents and spent $6.2 million of rate payer’s funds, paid for by people from Sherwood and Corinda. She needs to do the same courtesy, Mr Chairman, through you, to ensure that the Francis Outlook is protected.
Deputy Mayor: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor ADAMS, your misrepresentation?
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, it’s disappointing that Councillor JOHNSTON needs to use General Business to bully and verbalise me continually.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: But I did not claim—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —that I would have no houses in my ward—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —and only houses in—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Deputy Chair: Yes, just one moment, please.
Councillor GRIFFITHS, can you please turn your mike off? It’s quite disruptive, you interjecting. Thank you.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I’m not interjecting.
Deputy Chair: Laughing is interjecting. Can you turn it off, please?
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Oh, hardly. Get over it. There’s so many lies going on in this place at the moment.
Deputy Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS, please turn your—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’d be good if you did some chairing. Proper chairing.
Deputy Chair: Turn your microphone off, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON, your point of order?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr Chairman, Councillor ADAMS claims that I am verballing and bullying her are an adverse reflection upon my character and I would ask that those comments are withdrawn.
Deputy Chair: Councillor ADAMS?
DEPUTY MAYOR: I will not withdraw the comments, I’m sorry, Mr Chair and Councillor GRIFFITHS just called me a liar, which he said he had a problem with earlier. So no, I won’t withdraw the comments.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I did not call you a liar.
Deputy Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Deputy Chair: Sorry, Councillor STRUNK, can I just deal—thank you, Councillor GRIFFITHS for turning your microphone off. I do appreciate it.
Councillor STRUNK?
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, Mr Chair—Deputy Chair, listen, on 6 June, the Chair made a ruling in regard to personal attacks from one Councillor to another. I implore you to ask Councillor ADAMS to withdraw what she has said about Councillor JOHNSTON.
Deputy Chair: Councillor STRUNK, we are all adults in this Chamber and if a Councillor feels that they don’t want to withdraw their statement, then that will be it.
Can we have any further General Business?
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well point of order, My Chairman.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, point of order.
Deputy Chair: Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON: You didn’t actually make a ruling on my point of order, that’s my first—
Deputy Chair: Sorry. Apologies.
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, but I haven’t finished now. Secondly, you do have powers as the Deputy Chair of Council, to take action against a Councillor who engages in unsatisfactory meeting behaviour and I again put on the record that being called a bully by Councillor ADAMS, she has misused the point of order to make adverse reflections about me.
She was supposed to clarify misrepresentation—an alleged misrepresentation but she chose to deliberately attack me in abuse of the point of order that she was making. You have powers and I would urge you to use them.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON. I don’t believe the DEPUTY MAYOR actually called you a bully, she said you were bullying. It was as an action, as a verb, rather than a noun.
DEPUTY MAYOR? You’re done?
Any further General Business? There being none, I declare the meeting closed. Thank you.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 30 July 2020
1. What Wards did not have a kerbside collection in the financial year 2019/2020?
2. How many reports have there been lodged for collection of illegal kerbside dumping from January to March 2020 and then from April to June 2020?
3. How many reports have there been lodged for collection of illegal kerbside dumping for July 2020?
4. How many fines have been issued for illegal dumping from March to June 2020?
5. How many fines have been issued for illegal dumping for July 2020?
6. How many compliance inspections were undertaken in restaurants and take away businesses in the Brisbane City Council area between March and June 2020?
7. How many compliance inspections were undertaken in restaurants and take away businesses in the Brisbane City Council area in the 2019/2020 financial year?
8. How many compliance fines have been to restaurants and take away businesses in the Brisbane City Council area in the 2019/2020 financial year?
9. Please list the CCTV cameras that are installed in Council parks and their locations.
10. How many residents have applied to defer their rate payments during the COVID pandemic?
11. How many residents in the Forest Lake Ward have applied to defer their rate payments during the COVID pandemic?
12. How many wood fire BBQ’s are still in place in Brisbane Parks?
13. How many wood fire BBQ’s in Council parks were replaced with gas BBQ’s in the last 12 months?
14. Please advise what bus routes operated by Brisbane Transport are paid for by the Brisbane City Council and no reimbursement of costs is received from the State Government.
15. Please provide details of the total amount of fine and infringement revenue collected by Council in the 2019-2020 Financial Year, with a breakdown of the amount by all of the fine types (eg parking fines, animal infringements, tolling infringements, illegal dumping, overgrown land, noise, smoke etc):
|TYPE OF FINE OR INFRINGEMENT |AMOUNT OF REVENUE |
| | |
Q16. Please provide details of the amount of revenue from residential parking permits for the following financial years, including the amount anticipated for the 2020-2021 financial year:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AMOUNT |
|2017-2018 | |
|2018-2019 | |
|2019-2020 | |
|2020-2021 | |
Q17. Please provide details of the number of donations and the total amount donated via rates accounts to the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust in the following periods:-
|RATES ACCOUNT PERIOD |NUMBER OF DONATIONS |TOTAL AMOUNT DONATED |
|April – June 2020 | | |
|(to support Bushfire Relief) | | |
|July – September 2020 | | |
Q18. Please provide details of the number of donations and the total amount donated via rates accounts to the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust in the following periods where payment was made using the Sniip app:-
|RATES ACCOUNT PERIOD |NUMBER OF DONATIONS VIA |TOTAL AMOUNT DONATED VIA |
| |SNIIP APP |SNIIP APP |
|April – June 2020 | | |
|(to support Bushfire Relief) | | |
|July – September 2020 | | |
Q19. Please provide details of the number of ratepayers who paid their rates using the Sniip app for the following rate periods:-
|RATES ACCOUNT PERIOD |NUMBER OF BILLS PAID VIA SNIIP |
|January – March 2017 | |
|April – June 2017 | |
|July – September 2017 | |
|October – December 2017 | |
|January – March 2018 | |
|April – June 2018 | |
|July – September 2018 | |
|October – December 2018 | |
|January – March 2019 | |
|April – June 2019 | |
|July – September 2019 | |
|October – December 2019 | |
|January – March 2020 | |
|April – June 2020 | |
Q20. Please provide details the total of any cost to Council for using the Sniip app for the following financial years:-
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AMOUNT |
|2017-2018 | |
|2018-2019 | |
|2019-2020 | |
Q21. Please provide the gross amount and the amount (after the pensioner remission) of revenue received for the Bushland Preservation Levy in 2019-2020.
Q22. Please provide a breakdown of the $48.486M in Revenue under Service 3.3.1.1 Conservation Reserves Management and Enhancement in the 2020-2021 Budget.
Q23. Please provide a breakdown of the $6.023M in Capital for the Bushland Acquisition Program under Service 3.3.1.1 Conservation Reserves Management and Enhancement in the 2020-2021 Budget.
Q24. Please provide weekly patronage figures for the following ferry services:
|SERVICE |WEEK BEGINNING |PATRONAGE FOR THAT WEEK |
|CityHopper |22/07/2019 | |
|CityHopper |20/04/2020 | |
|CityHopper |20/07/2020 | |
|CityFerry |22/07/2019 | |
|CityFerry |20/04/2020 | |
|CityFerry |20/07/2020 | |
|CityCat |22/07/2019 | |
|CityCat |20/04/2020 | |
|CityCat |20/07/2020 | |
Q25. Please provide a list of all petitions presented to Council during the last twelve months and the date the Council’s response was determined, and where the response has not yet been determined:
|PETITION NAME |DATE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL |DATE OF COUNCIL RESPONSE DATE |
| | | |
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 16 June 2020)
Q1. As at 9 June 2020 how many clubs have received the second amount of up to $5000 in water rebates announced by the Lord Mayor in May 2020? Please provide a list of clubs and the amount paid to those Clubs.
A1. As at 9 June 2020, no clubs had received the $5,000 rebate announced by the Lord Mayor in May 2020. Payments to clubs were made on 30 June 2020.
Q2. Please provide a list of the eligible Club’s entitled to the water rebates announced by the Lord Mayor in May 2020? Please provide a list of clubs and the rebate entitlement.
A2.
|Acacia Ridge F.C. Inc |
|AFL Queensland Limited - Yeronga |
|AFL Queensland Limited – Zillmere |
|Algester Branch Little Athletics Centre Inc. |
|Algester Sports Inc. |
|Annerley Recreation Club Incorporated |
|Ashgrove Bowls and Community Recreation Club Inc |
|Ashgrove Golf Club |
|Aspley Little Athletics Centre Inc |
|Aspley Rugby League Club |
|Aspley Rugby League Football Club Inc |
|Banyo Rugby League Club Inc |
|Bardon Bowls Club Inc |
|Bardon Latrobe Football Club Inc |
|Baseball Queensland Inc |
|Bayside United Sports and Recreation Club Inc |
|Bellbowrie Sports and Recreation Club Inc |
|Belmont Services Bowls Club Inc |
|Booroodabin Community & Recreation Club Inc |
|Bracken Ridge District Cricket Club Inc |
|Brighton District Soccer Club Inc |
|Brighton Roosters Junior Rugby League Club Inc |
|Brisbane Athletic Football Club Inc |
|Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited |
|Brisbane City Football Club Ltd (Edmondstone St) |
|Brisbane City Football Club Ltd (Mark St) |
|Brisbane Hockey Management Group Inc |
|Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Incorporated |
|Brisbane Racing Club |
|Brisbane Rugby League Referees Association Incorporated |
|Brisbane Softball Association Inc |
|Brisbane Softball Association Inc and Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association Inc |
|Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association Inc |
|Brothers Rugby Club Inc |
|Brothers St. Brendan’s Rugby League Football Club Inc |
|Bulimba Hockey Club Inc & Bulimba Cricket Club Incorporated |
|Bulimba Junior Sports Club Inc |
|Bulimba Memorial Bowls and Community Club Inc |
|Calamvale Leopards Junior Australian Football Club Inc |
|Camp Hill Community & Sporting Club Inc |
|Cannon Hill Stars Rugby League Club Inc |
|Centenary Stormers F.C. Inc |
|Chermside Bowls Club Inc |
|Colleges United Football Club Incorporated |
|Commercial Hockey Club Incorporated |
|Communify Queensland Ltd |
|Corinda Bowls Club Inc |
|Downey Park Netball Association Incorporated |
|Durack-Inala Bowls Club Inc |
|East Brisbane Croquet Club Inc |
|Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club Incorporated |
|Eastern Suburbs Soccer Club Limited |
|Easts Mt. Gravatt Junior Rugby League Football Club Incorporated |
|Easts Rugby Union Club |
|Everton Districts Cricket Club Inc |
|Everton Districts Sporting Club Inc |
|Everton Park Bowls and Community Club Inc |
|Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club Inc |
|Ferny Districts Cricket Club Inc |
|Ferny Grove & Districts Junior Australian Football Club Inc |
|Ferny Grove Bowls, Sports and Community Club Inc |
|Forest Lake Junior Rugby League Football Club Incorporated |
|Forest Lake Junior Rugby Union Club Inc |
|Fortitude Valley Rugby League Football Club - Junior Division Inc |
|Gaythorne Bowls, Sports & Community Club Inc. |
|Geebung Bowls Club Incorporated |
|Gibson Park Committee Inc |
|Gold Crest Cricket Club Inc. |
|GPS Rugby Club Inc. |
|Graceville Croquet Club Inc. |
|Grange Thistle Football Club Ltd |
|Grange Thistle Football Club Ltd (Former Grange Bowls) |
|Greenslopes Bowls & Community Club Inc. |
|Hawks Sporting Club Inc. |
|Hockey Queensland Inc. |
|Holland Park Hawks Football Club Inc |
|Holland Park Sports and Community Club Inc. |
|Inala Wangarra Inc. |
|Indians Baseball Club Inc. |
|Indooroopilly Districts Cricket Club Incorporated |
|Indooroopilly Golf Club |
|Jindalee Bowls Club Inc |
|Jindalee District Australian Football Club Inc |
|Jindalee Golf Club Inc. |
|Kangaroo Point Rovers Football Club Incorporated |
|Kedron Football Club Incorporated |
|Kenmore District Junior Australian Football Club Inc. |
|Kenmore Districts Rugby Club Inc. |
|Kuraby Knights Cricket Club Incorporated |
|MacGregor Netball Association Incorporated |
|MacGregor/Souths Cricket Club Incorporated |
|McIlwraith Croquet Club Inc. |
|Merthyr Bowls Club Inc |
|Merthyr Croquet Club Inc. |
|Metropolitan Districts Netball Association Incorporated |
|Mitchelton Sports Club Incorporated |
|Moggill Cricket Club Inc |
|Moorooka Districts Australian Football Club Inc. |
|Morningside Australian Football Club Limited |
|Mt Crosby Bowls Club Inc. |
|Mt Gravatt Australian Football Club Inc |
|Mt Gravatt Bowls Club Inc. |
|Mt Gravatt Hawks Soccer Club Inc |
|Muddies Cricket & Recreation Club Inc |
|Newmarket Soccer Football Club Inc. |
|North Brisbane FC Inc. |
|North Brisbane Rugby Union Club Inc |
|North Star Football Club Inc. |
|Northern Suburbs Bowls Club Inc. |
|Northern Suburbs District Cricket Club Inc. |
|Northern Suburbs Hockey Club Incorporated |
|Northern Suburbs Rugby League Football Club Limited |
|Norths St Josephs Junior Rugby League Club Inc. |
|Oxley Bowls Club Inc |
|Oxley United Soccer & Sporting Club Inc. |
|Queensland Blind Cricket Association Inc |
|Queensland Christian Soccer Association Inc. |
|Queensland Cricket Association Ltd |
|Queensland Gaelic Football and Hurling Association Inc. |
|Queensland Lions Football Club |
|Queensland Lions Football Club trading as Darra United Soccer Club Inc. |
|Queensland Sporting Club |
|Red Hill Community Sports Club Inc. |
|Ridge Hills United Football Club Inc. |
|Salisbury Bowls Club Inc. |
|Sandgate-Redcliffe District Cricket Club Inc |
|Sherwood Football Club Limited |
|South Brisbane District Cricket Club Inc |
|Southern Suburbs Rugby League Football Club (Brisbane) Limited |
|Souths Graceville Rugby League Club Inc |
|Souths Junior Cricket Club Inc |
|Souths Rugby Union Club Inc - Tarragindi |
|Souths Rugby Union Club Inc - Yeronga |
|Souths Sunnybank Rugby League Club Incorporated |
|Souths United Soccer Club Inc. |
|Southside Eagles Soccer Club Ltd. |
|Spanish Centre Limited |
|St Catherine's United Football Club Inc. |
|St Lucia Bowling Club Inc. |
|St Pauls Uniting Soccer Club Inc. |
|Stephens Croquet Club Inc. |
|Sunnybank Rugby Union Club Inc |
|Taringa Rovers Soccer Football Club Inc |
|The Australian Hellenic Sports & Cultural Association Inc. |
|The Gap Pastime Club Incorporated |
|The Lions Rugby Union Club Inc |
|The Tarragindi Churches' Tigers Sporting Association Incorporated |
|The University of Queensland Football Club Inc. |
|The University of Queensland Football Club Inc. and Kenmore Football Club Inc. |
|Toombul Bowls Club Inc. |
|Toombul Croquet Club Inc. |
|Toombul District Cricket Club Inc |
|Toowong Football Club Inc. |
|Toowong Harriers Amateur Athletic Club Inc. |
|Valley District Cricket Club Inc. |
|Valley Hockey Club Inc. |
|Virginia and United Districts Sports Club |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc - Aspley |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc - Chermside |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc - Tingalpa |
|Welcome Sports Ltd. |
|Wellers Hill Bowls Club Inc. |
|West Arana Hills Rugby League Football Club Inc. |
|Western Districts Baseball Club Incorporated |
|Western Districts Netball Association Incorporated |
|Western Districts Rugby Football Club Limited |
|Western Suburbs District Cricket Club Inc |
|Western Suburbs District Cricket Club Inc & Kenmore Australian Football Club Incorporated & Trustees of Edmund Rice Education |
|Australia |
|Wests (Brisbane) Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc. |
|Wests Juniors Australian Football Club Incorporated |
|Wests Mitchelton Rugby League Football Club Inc |
|Westside Sports Club Inc. |
|Wilston Grange Australian Football Club Inc. |
|Windsor Bowls Club Inc |
|Windsor Croquet Club Inc. |
|Windsor Royals Sports Club Inc |
|Wynnum & District Rugby Union Club Inc |
|Wynnum Croquet Club Inc. |
|Wynnum Golf Club Inc |
|Wynnum Manly District Cricket Club Inc |
|Wynnum Manly Junior Rugby League Football Club Limited |
|Wynnum Softball Assoc. Inc |
|Wynnum Vikings Australian Football & Sporting Club Inc. |
|Wynnum Wolves Football Club Inc |
|Zone 4, Eastern Districts Junior Cricket Association Inc |
Q3. Please provide a list of the eligible Club’s entitled to the water rebates announced by the Lord Mayor in September 2019. Please provide a list of clubs and the rebate entitlement.
A3.
|Acacia Ridge F.C. Inc - $14.65 |
|AFL Queensland Limited (Yeronga) - $490.92 |
|AFL Queensland Limited (Zillmere) – Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Algester Branch Little Athletics Centre Inc - $10.28 |
|Algester Sports Inc - $1,693.69 |
|Annerley Recreation Club Incorporated - $1,769.34 |
|Ashgrove Bowls and Community Recreation Club - $1,062.28 |
|Ashgrove Golf Club - $1,026.24 |
|Aspley Little Athletics Centre - $1,393.97 |
|Aspley Rugby League Club – Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Aspley Rugby League Football Club Inc - $1,321.15 |
|Banyo Rugby League Club Inc.- $121.42 |
|Bardon Bowls Club Inc - $1,352.37 |
|Bardon Latrobe Football Club Inc - $3,936.81 |
|Baseball Queensland Inc - $4,433.82 |
|Bayside United Sports and Recreation Club Inc - $2,907.12 |
|Bellbowrie Sports & Recreation Club Inc - $3,250.31 |
|Belmont Services Bowls Club - $1,603.53 |
|Booroodabin Community & Recreation Club - $1,448.21 |
|Bracken Ridge District Cricket Club Inc - $1,936.87 |
|Brighton District Soccer Club Inc - $3,652.87 |
|Brighton Roosters Junior Rugby League Football Club - $3,565.02 |
|Brisbane Athletic Football Club - $276.90 |
|Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd - $1,998.54 |
|Brisbane City Football Club Ltd (Edmondstone St) - $4,600.86 |
|Brisbane City Football Club Ltd (Mark St) - $24.50 |
|Brisbane Hockey Management Group - $5,000.00 |
|Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Incorporated - $5,000.00 |
|Brisbane Racing Club - $1,316.99 |
|Brisbane Rugby League Referees Association Inc - $3,338.03 |
|Brisbane Softball Association - $158.18 |
|Brisbane Softball Association and Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association - $2,344.03 |
|Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association - $1,468.87 |
|Brothers Rugby Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Brothers St Brendans Rugby League Football Club - $3,510.35 |
|Bulimba Hockey Club Inc & Bulimba Cricket Club Incorporated/Hockey Qld (on one account) - $5,000 |
|Bulimba Junior Sports Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Bulimba Memorial Bowls & Community Club Inc - $848.14 |
|Calamvale Leopards Junior Australian Football Club Inc. - $95.12 |
|Camp Hill Community & Sporting Club Inc - $1,287.95 |
|Cannon Hill Stars Rugby League Club Inc – 1,080.39 |
|Chermside Bowls Club Inc - $2,196.51 |
|Colleges United Soccer Club Inc - $253.39 |
|Commercial Hockey Club Incorporated - $1,869.30 |
|Communify Queensland Ltd - $5,000 |
|Corinda Bowls Club - $1,238.59 |
|Downey Park Netball Association - $380.22 |
|Durack-Inala Bowls Club Inc - $757.63 |
|East Brisbane Croquet Club Incorporated - $403.60 |
|Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club Incorporated - $5,000.00 |
|Eastern Suburbs Soccer Club Limited - $5,000.00 |
|Easts Mt Gravatt Junior Rugby League Football Club Incorporated - $5,000.00 |
|Easts Rugby Union Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Everton Districts Cricket Club Inc - $2,254.94 |
|Everton Districts Sporting Club Inc - $4,337.62 |
|Everton Park Bowls and Community Club - $121.65 |
|Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club - $1,415.43 |
|Ferny Districts Cricket Club Inc. - no separate account at the time |
|Ferny Grove & Districts Junior Australian Football Club Inc. - no separate account at the time |
|Ferny Grove Bowls Sports & Community Club Inc - $1,432.16 |
|Forest Lake Junior Rugby League Football Club Incorporated - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Forest Lake Junior Rugby Union Club Inc. - $278.50 |
|Fortitude Valley Rugby League Football Club – Junior Division Inc - $289.08 |
|Gaythorne Bowls Sports & Community Club Inc - $1,379.48 |
|Geebung Bowls Club Inc - $534.81 |
|Gibson Park Committee Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Gold Crest Cricket Club Inc - $1,064.47 |
|GPS Rugby Club Inc - $886.35 |
|Graceville Croquet Club Inc - $929.40 |
|Grange Thistle Football Club Ltd - $5,000.00 |
|Greenslopes Bowls & Community Club Inc - $2,151.94 |
|Hawks Sporting Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Holland Park Hawks Football Club Inc. - $3,839.64 |
|Holland Park Sports and Community Club - $1,000.35 |
|Inala Wangarra Inc. - $821.79 |
|Indians Baseball Club Inc - $131.92 |
|Indooroopilly Districts Cricket Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Indooroopilly Golf Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Jindalee Bowls Club Inc - $2,288.17 |
|Jindalee District Australian Football Inc - $3,035.01 |
|Jindalee Golf Club Inc - $197.80 |
|Kangaroo Point Rovers Football Club Incorporated - $80.02 |
|Kedron Football Club Incorporated - $71.52 |
|Kenmore District Australian Football Club - $3,938.83 |
|Kenmore Districts Rugby Club Inc - $1,195.70 |
|Kuraby Knights Cricket Club Incorporated - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|MacGregor Netball Association Incorporated - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Macgregor/Souths Cricket Club Inc - $31.67 |
|Mcilwraith Croquet Club Incorporated - $1,138.61 |
|Merthyr Bowls Club Inc - $308.89 |
|Merthyr Croquet Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Metropolitan Districts Netball Association Incorporated - $27.16 |
|Mitchelton Sports Club Inc - $2,255.82 |
|Moggill Cricket Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Moorooka Districts Australian Football Club - $2,271.99 |
|Morningside Australian Football Club Limited - $5,000.00 |
|Mt Crosby Bowls Club Inc - $608.96 |
|Mt Gravatt Australian Football Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Mt Gravatt Bowls Club Incorporated - $165.65 |
|Mt Gravatt Hawks Soccer Club Inc. - $1,282.03 |
|Muddies Cricket & Recreation Club Inc - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Newmarket Soccer Football Club Inc - $414.56 |
|North Brisbane F.C. Inc - $3,231.15 |
|North Brisbane Rugby Union Club Inc. - $5,000 |
|North Star Football Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Northern Suburbs District Cricket Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Northern Suburbs Hockey Club Inc - $1,462.75 |
|Northern Suburbs Rugby League Football Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Norths St Josephs Junior Rugby League Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Oxley Bowls Club Inc - $1,438.74 |
|Oxley United Soccer & Sporting Club Inc - $860.18 |
|Queensland Blind Cricket Association Inc - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Queensland Christian Soccer Association Inc - $1,140.96 |
|Queensland Cricket Association - $5,000.00 |
|Queensland Gaelic Football Association and Hurling Association Inc - $1,108.75 |
|Queensland Lions Football Club Inc - $20.16 |
|Queensland Lions Football Club trading as Darra United Soccer Club Inc - $2,529.71 |
|Queensland Sporting Club - $2,842.00 |
|Red Hill Community Sports Club Inc - $884.22 |
|Ridge Hills United Football Club Inc - $1,391.78 |
|Salisbury Bowls Club - $2,268.87 |
|Sandgate-Redcliffe District Cricket Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Sherwood Football Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|South Brisbane District Cricket Club Inc - $1,947.74 |
|Southern Suburbs Rugby League Football Club (Brisbane) Limited - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Souths Graceville Rugby League Club Inc - $2,962.01 |
|Souths Junior Cricket Club Inc. - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|Souths Rugby Union Club Inc (Tarragindi) - $1,070.74 |
|Souths Rugby Union Club Inc (Yeronga) - $4,092.62 |
|Souths Sunnybank Rugby League Club Inc - $77.69 |
|Souths United Soccer Club Inc - $269.64 |
|Southside Eagles Soccer Club - $792.61 |
|Spanish Centre Limited - $318.68 |
|St Catherine’s United Football Club Inc - $5,000 |
|St Lucia Bowling Club Inc - $1,697.85 |
|St Paul’s Uniting Soccer Club Inc - $3,772.72 |
|Stephens Croquet Club Inc - $1,006.84 |
|Sunnybank Rugby Union - $5,000 |
|Taringa Rovers Soccer Football Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|The Australian Hellenic Sports & Cultural Association Inc - $967.18 |
|The Gap Pastime Club Incorporated - $2,966.16 |
|The Lions Rugby Union Club Inc - Urban Utilities billing incomplete* |
|The Tarragindi Churches’ Tigers Sporting Association Incorporated - $3,260.79 |
|The University of Queensland Football Club - $5,000.00 |
|The University of Queensland Football Club Inc. and Kenmore Football Club Inc. - $13.02 |
|Toombul Bowls Club Inc - $286.05 |
|Toombul Croquet Club Inc - $1,261.33 |
|Toombul District Cricket Club Inc - $1,523.83 |
|Toowong Football Club Inc. - $4,763.66 |
|Toowong Harriers Amateur Athletic Club Inc - $3,655.12 |
|Valley District Cricket Club - $359.37 |
|Valley Hockey Club Inc - $209.61 |
|Virginia and United District Sports Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc (Aspley) - $2,869.60 |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc (Chermside) - $2,983.23 |
|Warehouse Cricket Association Queensland Inc (Tingalpa) - $37.87 |
|Welcome Sports - $2,408.41 |
|Wellers Hill Bowls Club Inc - $1,323.17 |
|West Arana Hills Rugby League Football Club - $5,000.00 |
|Western Districts Baseball Club Inc & Centenary Stormers F.C. Inc (on one account) - $4,904.39 |
|Western Districts Netball Association - $1,841.62 |
|Western Districts Rugby Football Club Limited - $3,820.84 |
|Western Suburbs District Cricket Club - $799.35 |
|Western Suburbs District Cricket Club & Kenmore Australian Football Club Incorporated & Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia -|
|$3,268.07 |
|Wests (Brisbane) Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc. - $4,336.63 |
|Wests Juniors Australian Football Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Wests Mitchelton District Rugby League Football Club - $1,800.63 |
|Westside Sports Club - $4,178.97 |
|Wilston Grange Australian Football Club Inc - $135.92 |
|Windsor Bowls Club Inc - $1,903.57 |
|Windsor Croquet Club Incorporated - $1,187.13 |
|Windsor Royals Sports Club Inc - $2,571.54 |
|Wynnum & District Rugby Union Club Inc - $5,000.00 |
|Wynnum Croquet Club - $1,076.97 |
|Wynnum Golf Club - $5,000.00 |
|Wynnum Manly Junior Rugby League Club - $230.92 |
|Wynnum Softball Association Inc - $4.34 |
|Wynnum Vikings Australian Football & Sporting Club Inc - $1,108.55 |
|Wynnum Wolves Football Club & Wynnum Manly District Cricket Club Inc (on one account) - $5,000.00 |
|Zone 4 Eastern Districts Junior Cricket Association Inc - $1,937.14 |
Q4. Are sporting Clubs on private property eligible for the sporting club water rebate announced by the Lord Mayor?
A4. No.
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 16 June 2020)
Q1. Please list the projects included in the 2016-2020 Better Bikeways for Brisbane program, in the following table:
|Project name |Short description |Council Ward |Amount spent in|Month completed |Length of new |Number of lights|
| | | |2016-2020 |(or current status|bikeway constructed |installed |
| | | | |if ongoing) | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
A1. Please refer Attachment A.
Q2. Please provide details of each market research conducted during the 2019-2020 financial year as per the table below:-
|DETAILS OF MARKET |HOW WAS THE RESEARCH |TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS |NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS |COST |
|RESEARCH PROJECT |CONDUCTED | | | |
| | | | | |
A2.
|Details of Market Research Project |Research conducted |Type of participants |Number of participants |Cost |
|Satisfaction with delivery of Council services|Telephone interviewing |Brisbane residents |200 per month |$112,621 |
|To inform the development of communication |6 rounds of focus groups |Brisbane residents and businesses |260 across all rounds |$161,900 |
|strategy and communication collateral |and 2 online communities | | | |
|Evaluate Council and the Living in Brisbane |Online survey |Brisbane residents |300 per month |$108,285 |
|newsletter | | | | |
|Commercial parking and loading zone behaviour |Face-to-face intercept |Transport carriers and businesses |367 carriers and |$29,850 |
|within the CBD |interviews and | |businesses | |
| |observation | | | |
|Travel behaviours and motivations of residents|Face-to-face intercept |Residents within the Pullenvale area |459 |$30,000 |
|in the Pullenvale area for bus review |and telephone interviews | | | |
|Preferences and concerns regarding street and |Online survey |Brisbane residents |900 |$30,550 |
|park trees in public spaces | | | | |
|Community awareness, perceptions and |Online survey |Brisbane residents |2,000 |$92,220 |
|satisfaction with Council services and | | | | |
|programs | | | | |
|Resident perceptions of the quality of life in|Online survey |Brisbane residents |2,452 |$38,000 |
|Brisbane and other cities across Australia | | | | |
|Customer satisfaction with ferry services |Face-to-face intercept |Users of the CityCat, City Ferries and|727 |$36,333 |
| | |City Hopper services | | |
|Quantitative research of Brisbetter |Online survey |Brisbane residents |701 |$37,120 |
|communication collateral | | | | |
|Disaster preparedness for residents living in |Online survey and |Brisbane residents living in areas |Unable to supply figure as|$23,500 |
|identified geographically vulnerable areas |interviews |geographically vulnerable to |project is ongoing | |
| | |bushfires and flooding | | |
|Quantitative research of Brisbetter |Online survey |Brisbane residents |613 |$44,142 |
|communication collateral | | | | |
|Animal ownership and associated behaviours and|Online surveys and online|Brisbane residents |2,200 |$125,000 |
|attitudes |communities | | | |
RISING OF COUNCIL: 7.38pm.
PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED
CHAIR
Council officers in attendance:
Victor Tan (A/Senior Council and Committee Officer)
Ashleigh Mansfield (Council and Committee Officer)
Julia Hagen (A/Council and Committee Officer)
ATTACHMENT A
|Project name |Short description |Council Ward |Amount spent in 2016 - 2020 |Month completed (or |Length of bikeway |Number of lights |
| | | | |current status if ongoing)|constructed (m) |installed |
|Bulimba Creek Bikeway Lighting: Yimbun Park |Installation of new lighting to existing bikeway |Runcorn | $ 164,000 |Dec-16 |NA |17 |
|Cabbage Tree Creek Bikeway - Albany Creek Rd to Coolabah Cr |Off road shared path connecting missing link between Coolahan Crescent to Albany Creek |McDowall | $ 657,000 |Jul-17 |310 |0 |
| |Road | | | | | |
|Cabbage Tree Creek Bikeway - Darien St |New off road shared path |McDowall | $ 908,000 |Nov-17 |140 |0 |
|Downfall Creek - Remick St to Trouts Rd |New off road shared path |McDowall | $ 1,503,000 |Jul-17 |365 |0 |
|Enoggera Creek Bikeway Lighting |Installation of new lighting to existing bikeway |Enoggera | $ 710,000 |Sep-17 |0 |59 |
|Gabba to UQ - Eleanor Schonell Bridge Connection |Upgrade of existing pathway on Annerley Road |The Gabba | $ 118,373 |Dec-17 |120 |0 |
|Gaddes Park Bikeway Lighting |Installation of new lighting to existing bikeway |Runcorn | $ 96,000 |Dec-16 |NA |14 |
|Indooroopilly Bikeway (Radnor St) - Stage 1 |New off road separated path |Walter Taylor | $ 10,639,350 |ongoing |NA |0 |
|Kangaroo Point Upgrade Stage 1 |Upgrade of existing separated bikeway between V1 and Goodwill Bridge |The Gabba | $ 11,000,000 |2019 |550 |6 |
|Land St Underpass |New separated underpass |Paddington | $ 2,573,813 |Not constructed |Not constructed |Not constructed |
|Local Link - Monford Park path |Design and construction of off road shared path across Monford Park linking Monford |Calamvale | $ 80,620 |Mar-17 |80 |0 |
| |Place to Palatine Street | | | | | |
|Local Link - Dandenong Road link |Design and construction of off road shared path on both side of Dandenong Road to |Jamboree | $ 547,253 |Oct-17 |310 |0 |
| |provide safer bike facility between Endeavour Street and entrance of Centenary Highway | | | | | |
|Local Link - Lambertia Close path |Design and construction of off road bikeway across Lambertia Close Park, between Pine |Holland Park | $ 368,816 |Sep-17 |200 |0 |
| |Mountain Road and Calliandra Place | | | | | |
|Local Link - Trafalgar Street Connection Morningside |Design and construction of off road bikeway connecting Tandoor Street and Trafalgar |Morningside | $ 242,741 |Jul-17 |150 |0 |
| |Street across the park | | | | | |
|Local Link - Munna Street |Design and construction of off road bikeway connecting Munna Street to the Enoggera |Enoggera | $ 183,071 |Jul-17 |120 |0 |
| |Bikeway | | | | | |
|Local Link - Osborne Rd |Design and construction of a shared path linkage between Burwood Road and the entrance |Enoggera | $ 27,204 |Dec-16 |20 |0 |
| |of Mt Maria College, to link to the internal shared path in the college | | | | | |
|Local Link - St Vincents Rd |Construction of a linkage between the footpath on St Vincents Road and the internal |Northgate | $ 16,507 |Feb-17 |10 |0 |
| |footpath of the park | | | | | |
|Local Link - School Street |Design and construction of a refuge crossing on School Street, along with signal |Central | $ 224,063 |Oct-17 |100 |0 |
| |relocations and kerb build out to provide safer crossing facility for school kids in | | | | | |
| |accessing the area. | | | | | |
|Minor Bikeway Lighting Program |Installation of new lighting to existing bikeways |Various | $ 6,675,000 |ongoing |NA |245 |
|Moreton Bay Bikeway - Wynnum North Rd to Lytton Rd |New off-road and on-road shared connection extending the MBC |Wynnum-Manly | $ 1,172,000 |2018 |470 |0 |
|Moreton Bay - Pritchard St |New off road shared connection along Pritchard St extending the MBC |Wynnum-Manly | $ 2,321,000 |2018 |770 |0 |
|Moreton Bay - Pritchard St - Rail Crossing |Rail crossing - design and construction by Queensland Rail |Wynnum-Manly | QR Designing |ongoing |not yet constructed |0 |
|Moreton Bay - Viola Pl to Schneider Rd |New off road shared connection |Hamilton | $ 264,000 |ongoing |NA |NA |
|North Brisbane Bikeway - Chermside to Aspley |New off road shared connection |Marchant | $ 2,310,000 |Sep-17 |875 |28 |
|North Brisbane Bikeway - Webster Road to Robinson Road West |New connection involving on road shared |Marchant | Not started |NA |NA |NA |
|North Brisbane Bikeway - NBB to Kedron Brook |New separated bikeway connection forming part of the North Brisbane bikeway. |Hamilton | $ 1,325,000 |ongoing |NA |NA |
|North Western Bikeway lighting: Stafford City to Royal Parade |Installation of new lighting to existing bikeway |McDowall | $ 1,497,976 |Jan-17 |365 |7 |
|North Western Bikeway: Kedron Brook Bikeway - Fifth Ave to Shaw Road Duplication |New off road separated path extending Kedron Brook Bikeway |Northgate | $ 1,281,000 |Nov-16 |725 |29 |
|North Western Bikeway: Uxbridge Street Bikeway Entrance |New bikeway entrance treatment |Marchant | $ 147,610 |Nov-16 |50 |0 |
South Western Bikeway: Amazons Place Park lightingInstallation of new lighting to existing bikewayJamboree $ 351,756 Jun-17NA32Southern Bikeway Link: Salisbury Bikeway Stage 2New off road shared path connection into existing networkMoorooka $ 1,648,705 Oct-174602Sylvan Road Peak Hour Bike LanesNew tidal peak hour bike lanesPaddington $ 171,384 Nov-1745NAGateway Motorway Upgrade North Link-Weyers RdNew off road connection into existing networkNorthgate $ 222,000 ongoing3000Wishart Community ParkShared path connecting park to Kavanagh Road and Bulimba Creek BikewayMacgregor $ 530,194 Jun-192000Woolloongabba BikewayNew on road separated bikeway on Stanley Street and permanent on road bike on Annerley RoadThe Gabba $ 21,485,000 201934350
-----------------------
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- table of common cardiac medications
- mbti table of personality types
- time table of examination 2019
- complete table of values calculator
- table of values equation calculator
- table of values generator
- graph table of values calculator
- linear equation table of values
- table of standard scores and percentiles
- table of derivatives pdf
- table of integrals exponential functions
- table of exponential integrals